Standing Committee F

[Part I]

[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and least suffering

Amendment proposed [16 January]: No. 185, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 16, after 'birds', insert 'or wild birds'.—[Alun Michael.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Marion Roe: I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
 Amendment No. 18, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 17, at end insert 'or ground nesting birds'.
 Amendment No. 19, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert— 
 '( ) pets and domestic animals'.
 Amendment No. 20, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or 
 ( ) will contribute towards— 
 ( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species; 
 ( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation; 
 ( ) the preservation of the landscape; 
 ( ) the rural economy; 
 ( ) vermin control; 
 ( ) habitat protection; 
 ( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992); 
 ( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or 
 ( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.
 Amendment No. 110, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or will contribute towards the control of nuisance animals'.
 Amendment No. 111, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or will contribute towards the maintenance of social and cultural cohesion of the area'.
 Amendment No. 112, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or will contribute towards the provision of a service for the collection of dead, injured, ill and surplus livestock from farms in the area'.
 Amendment No. 113, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or 
 ( ) will contribute towards— 
 ( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species; 
 ( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation; 
 ( ) the preservation of the landscape; 
 ( ) vermin control; 
 ( ) habitat protection; 
 ( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992); 
 ( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or 
 ( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.
 Amendment No. 115, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or 
 ( ) for the purpose of obtaining meat for human or animal consumption.'.

Hugo Swire: To refresh the memories of hon. Members—[Hon. Members: ''No!''] Perhaps Labour Members have not sufficiently refreshed themselves between sittings.
 I was speaking to amendment No. 111. I am entirely within my rights to do that because the amendment relates to the social and cultural cohesion of an area. I was trying to educate, if not illuminate, Committee members about the importance of art and literature in hunting to date. That is reasonable because much literature on hunting has enabled people from both town and country better to understand the countryside. The Higginson collection of more than 4,000 books in the London library relates to hunting and the countryside, and the collection is as important as the Domesday book—in its own way—because it charts every parish and county in the United Kingdom. A link should be recognised. 
 I would not want to dwell on that and no doubt you would not allow me to, Mrs. Roe, so I shall move on to amendment No. 20, which refers to many things including 
''the preservation of the landscape''.
 The submission in chapter 7.5 of the Burns report, which is titled ''Habitat conservation in the interests of foxhunting'' says: 
''historically, the landscape of many parts of lowland England, especially the Midlands, has been strongly influenced by the desire to establish and conserve good foxhunting country.''
 That is still true. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) said last week that many people still linger under the impression that the English countryside is not man-made, but natural. I must disabuse them of that. 
 Large tracts of the English, Scottish and Welsh landscape have been fashioned. Coverts and woods have been fashioned for shooting and lakes have been created for fishing. Rivers have been diverted, scrub has been cleared and heather moorland has been burned in the name of sport, utility, shooting, deer stalking and hunting—that is a fact. We must recognise that we have a unique landscape because of that before we finally submit to the Government's desire to concrete over most of England. Anyone who works in the tourist industry will say that the English 
 landscape is often the reason why people visit England. People certainly visit Devon—my part of the world—because of our unique landscape. 
 There is a balance to be struck and a trade off to be made in the debate on utility and conservation. Ending hunting with hounds, and especially the hunting of stags with hounds, will upset a delicate balance.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman alleges that the Government have a desire to concrete over the landscape, which I do not accept. Do I take it that he is against the building of roads in the United Kingdom, such as the Okehampton bypass?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is kind to draw that to my attention. I am not against the building of roads in the country. I am pro the duelling of the A30 and the A303. I know much less about the Okehampton bypass, but he would not expect me to know much about it because it has nothing to do with my constituency.

Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the restoration of the landscape in Wales would lead to the end of the mass planting of conifers that has led to a lessening of biodiversity throughout upland Wales?

Hugo Swire: Yes. I would hazard a guess that were hunting or sporting activity to cease in large areas of the country, landowners—or land managers as we must learn to call them—would be obliged to find alternative ways of making their country pay and would be more tempted by the blandishments of planting conifers, which are unsightly though undoubtedly necessary in some cases.
 The difference in the clause is that the Minister has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in the case of stag hunting and coursing. Why he has it in for stag hunting in particular, I cannot fathom. I believe that he has chosen the wrong target. In terms of utility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) was saying this morning, the case for the continuation of stag hunting is arguably easier to make than it is for any other form of hunting. I believe the ban reflects prejudice. Some hon. Members still believe that hounds chase a hapless stag, which is cornered, savaged and torn to bits by hounds. We know that that is not the case, and misconception and ignorance are behind the total ban. 
 Will we be any better off if there is a total ban? I refer to something that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) said some time ago. He asked if the Minister would 
''ensure that, before the Bill is enacted, a proper deer management and culling plan is in place on Exmoor to avoid the predictable mayhem that would ensue in the area''.—[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 761.]
 What has been put in place? Of course, the answer is nothing. Endless questions have been asked in the other place by Lord Mancroft and others, asking various Ministers what wildlife management programme was to be put in place in the event of a 
 total ban on stag hunting and the limitation of other forms of foxhunting and answer came there none. 
 We have often quoted Mr. Graham Sirl, the former head of the west country operations of the League Against Cruel Sports. It is worth quoting again something that he said about the importance of hunting to the deer population, with the caveat that he makes it clear that he has not changed his view on hunting with hounds. He still believes it to be unnecessary and that it involves cruelty to the deer being hunted. However, he goes on to say: 
''I do now believe that hunting with hounds does play an integral part of the management system for deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks. In some instances, hunting in general is a constitutive part of West Country rural community life. Those who don't acknowledge this to be true, or similarly choose to ignore same, are turning their backs on an argument they know is difficult to win.''

Nicholas Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in the middle of his powerful speech. He makes an extremely important point about utility. Can he explain to the Committee why he believes that Government Members should seek to ban stag hunting but not foxhunting?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point. I do not understand why the Minister, if he believes in his twin criteria of cruelty and utility, is not prepared to let stag hunters and deer coursers take their chance with the tribunal and the registrar along with other aspiring hunters. That would be logical, but I suspect there are darker forces at play, and I think that the Bill is based largely on ignorance and prejudice.
 The Exmoor national park authority, which is an independent body like the Dartmoor national park authority, so probably not open to lobbying, wrote to the Minister, arguing: 
''No agreed alternative model to the current management regime yet exists for an appropriate mechanism for deer management that will maintain the current numbers, quality and visibility of wild red deer on Exmoor.''
 That supports my point. 
 If the provisions are about utility and if the management of deer herds and animal welfare are at the forefront of the minds of Labour Members, they owe us and the wider community—especially those who partake in stag hunting with hounds or make their livelihood from that—some answers. Why is there no deer management programme to be put in place in the event of a ban? How will that imbalance be dealt with? 
 With your indulgence, Mrs. Roe, I shall read a piece that relates to some questions posed this morning by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on the varying discussions about the quantity and quality of deer on Exmoor over the years. The late Ted Hughes was a west countryman by adoption, poet laureate, a great fisherman and a lover of nature and the countryside. [Interruption.] Yes, he fished and shot—at least, I think that he shot—but he was a lover of nature. Those are not incompatible, as some hon. Members would suggest. He was a great fisherman rather than an angler. He wrote a very interesting article in that learned publication The Guardian some 
 time ago, which I am more than happy to make available to Committee members, should they wish to learn something. On the Exmoor deer, he said that 
''after the War, when things eased off, with three Hunts fully operational the deer population soared away again, as it has continued to do ever since, right up to the 1995 census of 2,500 animals—far more than ever before in recorded history.''
 [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham has either lunched well or is bored by the late poet laureate or me, but I shall continue because this is important.

Mike Hall: But is it relevant?

Hugo Swire: I shall leave that for Mrs. Roe to decide. Hughes continued:
''This must be one of English conservation's most impressive success stories. And yet it depends on a single fragile psychological factor—what I have called that 'mysterious thing'. The Hunt itself is helpless to protect the deer. The secret lies in that strange agreement among the farmers and country people of the entire sprawling region, a decision arrived at God knows how, to refrain from killing the deer.
The effects of this unspoken contract are so real that farmers far from the Hunt's heartland now find themselves going to some trouble to protect odd groups of resident red deer. I know one farmer 30 miles from the Hunt's usual limits who was recently tolerating over 20, on less than 300 acres. Few such farmers would suppose they were preserving deer for the Hunt. Many of them will have little direct interest in it. But Staghunting touches deep tribal springs. This attitude to the red deer has a pride and sovereignty all its own. And this is one way in which these men can confirm their solidarity with the inner life of the region: they refrain from killing the deer.
Even so, the agreement is precarious. This protection is granted to the herd on a condition. The moment the Hunt is banned, everything changes. The deer instantly lose all symbolic meaning, as the totems of a special way of life. Ejected from their sacred niche in the community, they suddenly belong to everybody and nobody. They have become vagrants, deprived of all status. Or rather, they have a new status—one that is dangerous to them. They now belong to a government that has just proved itself unsympathetic, even hostile, towards the Westcountry farmer's way of life. And this government, with its well-known, official faces, having taken the deer from the farmers, has straight away dumped them back on his fields as expensive squatters, to be fed and cared for by him. Meanwhile, those enterprising young locals look at the deer with new eyes. What they see now are huge, unclaimed packages of saleable meet and exciting fun just wandering about.''

Tony Banks: I gave up reading The Guardian a long time ago. I did not expect to have it read to me in Committee. I may say to the hon. Gentleman that I might have had a good lunch, but it was not that good, because I could still hear him. As regards the deer population recovering after the war—which he equated with the reintroduction of the hunt—does he not feel that the decline of the deer population prior to that might have been related to the fact that during the war, which I can remember, meat was difficult to get hold of and people might have gone out and killed them for the pot?

Hugo Swire: Well, no. [Laughter.] I can only answer the hon. Gentleman by reference to another passage from the late Ted Hughes, which had he not lunched so well he would have remembered that I quoted this morning. That gives him chapter and verse as to why the deer population on Exmoor was reduced. It was reduced because people stopped hunting on Exmoor. [Interruption.]

Marion Roe: Order. Will hon. Members please allow the hon. Gentleman to be heard?

Hugo Swire: Thank you for your protection, Mrs. Roe.
 I quote: 
''When the North Devon Staghounds''—
 which was the second of the packs— 
''fizzled out in 1825, their small powers of protection went, and the deer population collapsed, just as surely as before. By 1850, it had fallen to about 50—most of them said to be maimed and peppered with gunshot wounds.''
 I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. 
 The symbiotic relationship between hunter and hunted continues to this day and I would suggest that anybody who wishes to question that should pay a visit to the west country—to Exmoor—and look at the Baronsdown situation. The hon. Member for West Ham extended an invitation to some of us to go there—I hope that he would include me in that, because I would welcome the opportunity—to see whether the 30-odd sanctuaries, and some of them are very odd indeed, administered by the League Against Cruel Sports, are keeping their deer in the same way as they live on the rest of Exmoor. I have read reports about how deer are looked after in some of those places and I find the accusations worrying, so I would welcome an opportunity to go along myself to verify them. 
 I turn to the question of the best way of dispatching an animal. If one has an animal's welfare at heart one must be aware that one is dispatching an animal in the most efficient and least cruel way. I do not believe that that is so in the case of deer shooting. I have never hunted deer on horseback, but I have shot deer in the highlands of Scotland—I have wounded a deer, I regret to say, and it is one of the most horrible feelings that one can possibly have, when the stalker turns to one and says, ''You have to go after it because you've wounded it.'' In hunting with hounds, be it of foxes or red deer, there is no middle way. If one hunts animals with hounds, one either kills the animal at the end of the hunt or it escapes. There is no question of its limping off into the undergrowth to die of gangrene or from attack by a predator—that simply does not happen. That is a key argument that the Bill has repeatedly failed to recognise and to address. 
 In conclusion, the application of the principle of utility—we have to ignore by stricture of the Chairman the application of the principle of cruelty, which I question anyway—should send out some worrying signals to all those who partake in other so-called field sports. We spoke earlier about the incumbent chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Jackie Ballard.

Candy Atherton: Oh.

Hugo Swire: On behalf, no doubt, of all Conservative Members, I echo and identify with that groaning sound.
 Jackie Ballard now speaks for a discredited organisation with a relatively small membership compared with that of the Countryside Alliance. 
 None the less, as we shall show, she has influence over the Committee in different ways. She is against angling, and thinks—but is not certain—that it is just about permissible to kill fish for food. I have no doubt that if the principles of utility were a criterion for the continuation of angling or fishing, those activities would be in real trouble. Likewise, the shooting fraternity should be nervous, but we will return to that later.

Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman said ''In conclusion.''

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman will allow me to conclude in my own time, I hope.
 It would be useful if Committee members declared what contacts they have with outside bodies that may influence them. For my part, I am happy to declare on the record that I am a member of Countryside Alliance—indeed, it would be strange if I did not say so. When time has permitted, I have been out with the Mid-Devon foxhunts on Dartmoor. I have not done that for a few years, but I hope to do so again shortly to show my solidarity with them. 
 I have hunted on and off since I was 17 or 18 years old, and have never witnessed any cruelty. I have always regarded hunting as a perfectly fair pastime, but I fully understand that there are those who do not. Equally, I realise that some members of the Committee are genuinely unhappy with hunting, and that not all hunts have always behaved perfectly. I am perfectly happy with the self-regulatory authorities that organisations have come up with. The Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting provides an effective regime of self-regulation, as does the Masters of Foxhounds Association and the Masters of Deerhounds Association. 
 However, I have changed my thinking: I originally voted for the status quo, but I am happy for hunting to be regulated in some way, if that is what the majority of the people of this country want. However, the people of this country, and all those who went to the trouble of writing to the Minister, testifying in Portcullis house, or writing—as I did—to the Burns committee, want to feel that the Minister is listening to the representations that are made to him. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendments, which would broaden the definition of utility. 
 If the Minister is genuinely willing to reach a workable compromise that will satisfy all parties, he should listen to us, too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) says, why does the Minister have it in for hare coursing and stag hunting? If he is so convinced that the criterion of utility that he came up with in his deliberations will deal fairly and effectively with other forms of hunting with dogs, why does he not have the courage of his convictions, and widen ''utility'' to include those two types of hunting, and let them take their chances with the tribunal and registrar?

Gregory Barker: If one accepts the premise of clause 8—that hunting with hounds must have a utility purpose if it is to continue—it is
 quite extraordinary that the considerable impact of foxhunting on our landscape, the flora and fauna of the countryside, and the rural communities that are its guardian, should not be taken into account in considering its utility. As legislators, we must, when picking over clauses and amendments, consider carefully the unintended, as well as the direct and intended, consequences of the Bill. The unintended consequences will be colossal. All too often in recent years, such unintended consequences have been the real hallmark of bad legislation emanating from Parliament.
 The unintended consequences of the Bill are almost unprecedented, whether it be the vixen mother of starving cubs being shot in the flash of a lamp or the decimation of the biodiversity in hunting areas. The amendments seek to recognise the profound, symbiotic relationship between the countryside and the foxhunts that range over it. 
 Some of our most outstanding countryside—areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest—particularly in lowland areas of England is, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said, a glorious artifice produced by generations, if not centuries, of human management and activity. Hunting hedgerows and covers, woodland, fences, coppices and meadows form part of the rural Arcadia, which we all cherish and admire. 
 A ban, which would surely follow from the application of a narrowly drawn utility test, would pose a direct threat to the managed landscape of large parts of rural England. What so many hunting people resent is the inconsistency in the application of principles that underpin this Government policy, and others, towards rural England. They are deliberately discriminating against hunting and country people. In this instance, I am not referring to the singular failure of the Minister or any other member of the Committee to bring forth, in his chosen phrase, clear and persuasive clinical, scientific or veterinary evidence that shows that hunting with hounds materially inflicts more suffering than any other form of control. People particularly object to there being no evidence that the reverse is true. 
 If that was not enough, what about the Government's commitment to ecological good governance and biodiversity, which extends to South America but not to East Sussex or other rural parts of Britain? Indeed, the unamended utility test's failure to give proper weight to the views and needs of local communities directly contradicts principle 22 of the 1992 Rio declaration on the environment and development, which states that 
''Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.''
 That goes to the heart of the past day's discussion. 
 The United Kingdom has signed up to the principles and recommendations outlined in the 
 United Nations sustainable development programme, Agenda 21, chapter 26 of which states that 
''In full partnership with indigenous peoples and their communities, Governments and where appropriate intergovernmental organisations should aim at fulfilling the following objectives . . . Recognition that the lands of indigenous people and their communities should be protected from activities that are environmentally unsound or that the indigenous people concerned consider to be socially and culturally inappropriate . . . Recognition of their values, traditional knowledge and resource management practices with a view to promoting environmentally sound and sustainable development.''

Rob Marris: Can the hon. Gentleman define for the Committee the phrase ''indigenous peoples'' as it is used in that context?

Gregory Barker: I think it means people who are local to and who have grown up in a particular area. That definition is not controversial, and it would apply to people in my part of East Sussex who have nurtured and tended the local countryside for generations, and rightly see themselves not only as the owners of or workers on a piece of local countryside, but as its guardians. They have an inter-generational responsibility to the landscape that they love.

Edward Garnier: Does my hon. Friend also accept that plenty of people have moved into East Sussex in particular, and that they have exactly the same desires as those who have lived there for many years? Although I accept the genesis of his argument in relation to indigenous people, it stands up just as well for those who have moved into an area. The only thing that concerns me about his speech is that he seems to be surprised at the way in which those who want hunting to be banned—the majority of Labour Members—are conducting this debate. Is he not aware that this is a wholly choreographed exercise and that those on the other side of the argument do not want the utility test to be implemented? They want the Bill to be amended, either in Committee or on Report, in such a way that the utility test is simply a device for banning hunting. That is the long and the short of it.

Gregory Barker: My hon. and learned Friend has a point, but for the purposes of this exercise, I intend to proceed properly and to take in good faith what the Minister is proposing. Nevertheless, what I have said demonstrates how Labour Members will loftily articulate aims and objectives that they would readily apply to indigenous people and local communities overseas, yet refuse point blank, because of their own prejudice and bigotry, to employ here on our own doorstep.
 The United Nations sustainable development programme recognises 
''that traditional and direct dependence on renewable resources and ecosystems, including sustainable harvesting, continues to be essential to the cultural, economic and physical well-being of indigenous people and their communities''
 Another of its objectives is the 
''involvement of indigenous people and their communities at the national and local levels in resource management and conservation strategies and other relevant programmes established to support and review sustainable development strategies''.

Nicholas Soames: I am very interested in the points that my hon. Friend is pursuing, and he is right to refer to the United Nations. However, the Labour party wants to ban hunting completely, and that would bring to an end an entire social and cultural way of life for hundreds of thousands of people. That is not just a United Nations matter, but applies in this country. Labour Members laughed when my hon. Friend referred to ''tribal springs'', but if the relationship between people and the deer on Exmoor is broken by the Government, that will be a tragedy. The matter goes much further than just the United Nations. It affects the cultural and social life of hundreds and thousands of people.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and as I develop my argument he will discover that it is something I hold very dear. It is worth showing by way of contrast the posture that the Government strike when it comes to their international obligations and issues of sustainable development and the reality of how they persecute local communities with a direct role in species management here in England and Wales.
 On Second Reading, the Minister said: 
''I have spent time meeting a variety of groups''—
 on Exmoor 
''to understand the situation, and I know something of the distinct local culture on Exmoor.''
 He continued: 
''it is clear that there is an unusual culture in respect of the deer herd. Even some of those who strongly oppose deer hunting acknowledge that powerful cultural attachment''.—[Official Report, 16 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 574.]
 He acknowledges the strong cultural identity and the Government acknowledge their responsibilities under the United Nations protocols, but they then cast them aside, making a complete mockery of all the evidence-based hearings that have taken place. 
 In many areas, the social life surrounding hunting activities is a critical feature of people's lives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex rightly said. The Burns inquiry concluded in its final report: 
''We do not underestimate the importance, for those who take part, of the opportunities for social interaction provided by hunting.''
 It also stated: 
''Organised hunting is therefore an intricate and complex social activity which is intimately linked to other features of rural life and which rests on a foundation of overlapping mutual interests, with the farmer/landowner at the hub.''
 In its submission to the consultation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2002, the Exmoor national park authority noted: 
''Exmoor National Park Authority is concerned that a ban on hunting of deer with hounds would represent a very significant change in the management of the wild deer herd on Exmoor which, as the earlier sections of the evidence explain, might adversely affect the future sustainability of the herd, and by extension a much valued aspect of Exmoor's cultural heritage. It would also have a serious impact on the social and economic well being of its rural communities. In this way it could put the National Park Authority's own statutory purposes and duties at risk.''
 Dr. Garry Marvin of the university of Surrey, Roehampton stated in his report, ''A study of the social and cultural importance of mounted fox hunting in the Scottish Borders'': 
''Without the actual hunting of foxes in the traditional manner on horseback and with a pack of hounds hunts would cease to exist and with this cessation would come the collapse of an entire social and cultural world.''
 One does not have to accept such an Armageddon scenario to realise that there would be a very real and profound effect on the social and cultural fabric of community life. Hunting has a profound utilitarian purpose. If it were banned, the utilitarian impact would go, whatever the degree or scale one chose to assign to it. It is a nonsense that it is not recognised in clause 8.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way. Would he care to tell the Committee who sponsored Dr. Marvin's study?

Gregory Barker: I do not have the information to hand, but I am willing to drop the hon. Gentleman a note or let the Committee know who it was.
 Amendment No. 111 would ensure that utility is defined properly to include social and cultural considerations. That is not only in line with the definition of utility in the hunting hearings in September 2002 and in the Burns inquiry but reflects the United Kingdom's international obligations. 
 The Bill fails to include social and cultural dimensions in the criteria for utility. It directly contradicts the scope of the Government's consultation, and in seeking to ban deer hunting and coursing, it is contrary to principle 22 of the Rio declaration. I genuinely would like to know how the Minister reconciles the Bill with our binding international treaty obligations. 
 The loss of community and social activity will create conditions of social isolation and exclusion that would apply in many hunting communities but especially on Exmoor where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton reminded us, the symbiotic relationship between community and hunt is culturally, economically and socially unique. 
 Hunting is loosely constructed around a club system, but all are free to participate. It is not restricted to any social group. Those in hunt supporters' clubs are just as important as those who follow hounds. In short, hunting provides opportunities to everyone to participate, irrespective of means. 
 Hunting provides the social glue in many communities because it provides a valid purpose over a wide-flung area for socialising. Hunts organise a constant round of social activities, including charity functions, which are a dependable feature of country life around which many people's lives are entirely structured. The culture of the hunting community involves people from widely differing income brackets, social backgrounds and ages. Both women and men are represented in large numbers. More than just a country pursuit, in an increasingly insecure and 
 perilous world, hunting gives participants a strong sense of belonging through shared activity. 
 It is not simply the activity of hunting itself that provides a social focus for communities. Examples of events organised by hunts include dinners, discos, young supporters' parties, hedge-laying competitions, quiz nights and point-to-points—all at a time when the countryside is conspicuously under-served with the social venues and leisure activities that are prevalent in urban areas. 
 Let us consider the impact on biodiversity. The Game Conservancy Trust's July 2002 report—''Habitat management undertaken in support of fox hunting in England and Wales'', by J. A. Ewald and N. Kingdon—says: 
''The area of woodlands managed for foxhunting in England and Wales is 23,300 hectares. This is based on information submitted by 93 hunts and is validated by on-site visits to a random selection of 235 woodlands.''
 To put that figure in context, the report says that it represents an area that is 
''roughly double the area of woodland within the boundaries of National Nature Reserves in England and Wales.''
 That is a very significant national asset indeed. 
 The types of active management undertaken for foxhunting include ride maintenance. I do not know the experience of other hon. Members, but in my county the budget for maintaining bridle paths is constantly under threat. People who use the countryside for equestrian leisure activities find fewer and fewer public rights of way that are cleared and maintained regularly. Rather than depending on the local authority or the state for such clearing and maintenance, people increasingly depend on the hunt. As well as ride maintenance, there is coppicing, with brash laying or brash piling; canopy tree removal; maintenance of hedges, shrubs and fences on woodland perimeters; planting of coverts; and some clear felling. 
 The costs associated with woodland management and other activities carried out by the hunts have been tabulated. In total, hunts spent at least £1.4 million on such management. That included 5,425 days of voluntary labour. If hunting were banned, or regulated to death, roughly 84 per cent. of that expenditure would end, as would the management.

Edward Garnier: Does my hon. Friend get the impression that people on the other side of this argument care one jot about what he is saying? He is describing a foreign country to them and they are simply not interested.

Gregory Barker: Labour Members have come to this Committee already minded to vote a particular way. They are not the slightest bit interested in listening to the arguments. The Minister went through a sham exercise in September, listening at length to more than 100 submissions, of which only seven were anti-foxhunting, yet taking no notice of what he heard. Unfortunately, if someone comes to a subject with their mind made up, it does not matter what evidence is thrown in front of them. If they have no ears to hear, they will not hear. Their decisions cannot be influenced.

Mike Hall: So the hon. Gentleman's mind is not made up, then? [Laughter.]

Gregory Barker: Anybody who has sat through this debate and listened to the arguments on both sides will, if objective, agree that the quality of argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman's side has been poor. The evidence of independent sources—scientific, clinical and veterinary—to justify the prejudice and bigotry that have been evinced could be summarised on the back of a postage stamp. Some hon. Members have come here simply to vent their prejudices. They seem unwilling to listen, but all I am trying to do is to advance a cogent and intellectually coherent argument for the cause of biodiversity as supported by foxhunting. I am sorry that Labour Members are so unwilling to listen to what I have to say, but it does not surprise me.
 Foxhunting clearly contributes to biodiversity. 
The Chairman rose—

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I am finding it difficult to hear what my hon. Friend has to—

Marion Roe: Order. I am on my feet, Mr. Luff.

Peter Luff: I am sorry.

Marion Roe: I ask hon. Members to come to order. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. As you know, the custom in this House is that hon. Members have the right to be heard, even if others disagree with what they are saying.

Gregory Barker: Thank you, Mrs. Roe.
 Foxhunting clearly contributes to biodiversity. It benefits wildlife apart from foxes. Independent scientific research commissioned by the Game Conservancy Trust found significantly higher numbers of butterflies and wildflowers in areas managed for hunting than in unmanaged areas.

Rob Marris: I want to demonstrate that Labour Members are listening to all the points made about the 70 deer that were taken out of 2,800, the 1.4 million that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the 5,234 voluntary days of labour, the 23,300 acres or the 49.13 per cent. of farmers who use hunting only as a means of fox control. We are listening, but it does not mean that we will agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman has clearly been listening throughout, and he is always courteous in his interventions. I am sorry to say that that is not true of some of his colleagues.
 The data supplied were also compared against other data on butterflies. The analysis found that rare butterflies occur more frequently in grid squares containing woodland managed for hunting. An area of gorse managed by the Sinnington hunt in Yorkshire provides habitat for the last remaining colony of pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies in eastern England. In a letter to the land's owner, the charity Butterfly Conservation wrote: 
''The Ravenswick Estate Company is to be congratulated for achieving what the rest of Yorkshire has failed to do.''
 The management strategy was foxhunting. 
 Hunts are also managing some of Britain's most precious wildlife habitats, and several have voluntarily entered into site of special scientific interest management agreements with English Nature. Two examples are the Belvoir hunt in Leicestershire and the Woodland Pytchley in Northamptonshire. Hedgerows are also planted and protected by hunts and pro-hunting farmers, but a 1987 publication found that pro-hunting farmers had removed 35 per cent. fewer hedgerows than the average farmer. Some hedgerows are now protected by law, but that leaves about 80 per cent. unprotected. There are also grants for planting new hedges, and evidence suggests that pro-hunting farmers are particularly keen to take up those grants. Many now uncommon farmland species are dependent on hedges for their survival.

Alan Whitehead: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of where pro-hunting farmers are taking up grants to a greater extent than anti-hunting farmers?

Gregory Barker: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific example, although I will endeavour to do so. However, one's intuition says that hunting farmers care more for hedges because they are the lifeblood of a good hunt. It is intrinsic to hunting country to have well-grown and maintained hedges.

Alan Whitehead: I advise the hon. Gentleman to have a word with his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I looked up the then Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's inquiry into hedgerows and stone walls, in which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire claimed to have made several interventions. It would have been difficult for him to make any interventions, as he was not present in any of the evidence sessions.

Gregory Barker: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could make his cheap political points during someone else's speech. I am trying to address a serious issue.

James Gray: What I said last week was that I spoke to the Select Committee's chairman on the subject. I had been promoted to the Front Bench by the time that the inquiry started. I think that the hon. Gentleman was also appointed to the Front Bench for a short time, but I am still there.
Dr. Whitehead rose—

Marion Roe: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not intervene during an intervention.

Gregory Barker: Thank you, Mrs. Roe.
 It is also necessary to maintain existing hedgerows that are cut by mechanical means, as without careful management and stock-proofing, they become gappy and soon lose their conservation value.

Andrew George: On hedgerows, I want simply to note that, from my experience, one main reason why farmers will not allow hunts on their land is because of the destruction that they do to hedgerows.

Gregory Barker: The main reason that farmers do not allow hunts on to their land may be a perceived threat to hedgerows, but the reality is that the vast majority of farmers allow hunts on to their land in the full and certain knowledge that hedges are there to be jumped. There may be some extraordinary anecdotal evidence, but there is statistical evidence from widely based research.

Peter Luff: Will my hon. Friend confirm, notwithstanding the point that he has just made, that the overwhelming majority of farmers allow hunts on their land? Will he also confirm that many hunts employ people to repair fences and hedges that may be damaged? There is no loss to the farmer because the preservation of hedges and fences is extremely important to the hunt.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes an extremely strong point. The preservation and maintenance of hedges and fences is intrinsic to hunting. That is not only good management, but simple courtesy.

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend will no doubt know that my part of the world has hedge-making and cutting and laying competitions. That demonstrates the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire in double time.

Gregory Barker: That is another good point, which underlines the unsubsidised symbiotic relationship between hunting and conservation in the countryside. Whatever importance one attaches to it, one cannot deny that there is a strong utility issue. It is extraordinary that the Minister's definition of utility does not simply fail to attach much importance to that, but ignores it altogether.

Candy Atherton: The hon. Gentleman talks about courtesy. Is he prepared to comment on the experience of my family? A hunt went through our garden and completely destroyed the vegetable patch and much of the rest of the garden. The master of the hunt said to my mother, ''You should be damn glad that we have come through your garden.'' Is that courtesy?

Gregory Barker: I think that that is extremely rude. If that is true, I am outraged—[Interruption.] I do not doubt that that is true.

Candy Atherton: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Gentleman is casting aspersions on my mother and doubting a well-known fact relating to something that happened to my family.

Marion Roe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will rephrase his point.

Gregory Barker: I certainly withdraw what I said. I would not cast aspersions on the hon. Lady's mother or father. That was certainly not my intention.

James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that, by and large, one thing that marks off people who go hunting, and one of the hallmarks of hunts, is their extreme and almost formal courtesy? If there were regrettable instances such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, it would be a matter of raising that with the master of the hunt, who, I am certain, would apologise unreservedly. That is the
 way we are. We are on the courteous side, unlike Labour Members.

Gregory Barker: I would also say to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) that if that was a recent occurrence, and if she does not feel that she got satisfaction, I will willingly take up the case on her behalf with the national foxhunting authorities. What happened to the hon. Lady was totally unacceptable and would be unacceptable if it happened to anybody else. However, that is an isolated incident and I know of no other comparable example.

Peter Luff: We will have a chance to debate the matter briefly in the clause stand part debate, which, I hope, will not be lengthy. However, I want to say just two things to my hon. Friend. First, does he think that one isolated example of road rage invalidates the driving of private motor vehicles? Clearly, it does not. When things go wrong, it does not mean that the whole thing is wrong. Secondly, I want to make a point about many of the incidents commented on by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). In my constituency, his apparent examples of lack of courtesy prove to be simple distortions of the truth caused by jealousies, tensions and prejudices. They have no foundation in fact.

Marion Roe: Order. Let us get back to the amendments that we should be debating.

Gregory Barker: Certainly, Mrs. Roe. By culling foxes, hunts help to protect many wild species that are vulnerable to predation, such as ground nesting birds. We know that where foxes are not controlled, they can wreak havoc on wild species. For example, when foxes invaded a bird reserve at Scolt Head in Norfolk, they inflicted great harm on a rare and protected sandwich tern colony. In the New Forest, the survival of the Montagu's harrier is in jeopardy because of foxes taking the chicks. The New Forest hunt has been used to control foxes near the nesting site. In 1997, the hunt was called in by the Forestry Commission to help to control foxes and killed eight within one mile of a nesting site. Most importantly, the hounds located the fox's den, which was close to the nest. The fox was dug out and humanely killed. Unfortunately, the New Forest hunt's effectiveness in contributing to biodiversity and sensitive culling has been severely restricted by the blanket ban on digging in Forestry Commission land.
 I conclude by quoting from the Government's Rural White Paper, ''Our Countryside: The Future—A Fair Deal for Rural England'', which states: 
''Part of what makes our countryside alive and vibrant is the enormous number of activities created chiefly by and for the residents agricultural shows, point-to-points . . . etc.''
 So many legitimate, unsubsidised, unique rural events will be threatened by the ban, or squeezed to death by regulation, of foxhunting. That is a terrible, and, I presume, unintended consequence of the Bill. 
 Without the amendments, a tightly drawn utility clause will knowingly, deliberately smother, kill and destroy communities, the countryside, flora and fauna in a way that is out of all proportion to the Bill's intended consequences.

Alun Michael: Before I respond to the amendments, and say what they would do if they were accepted, and rather than responding to some of the rhetoric used in the wide-ranging debate, I shall deal with a couple of factual matters.
 At our sitting last Thursday, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that 
''the London borough of Wandsworth appointed an organisation called Wildlife Management Ltd. to look after the fox population in Wandsworth''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 January 2003; c. 177.]
 He said that the company trapped 2,717 foxes in Wandsworth alone since St. David's day 2002. He also claimed that the organisation was approved by DEFRA and referred to Government-appointed organisations. He continued in c. 178, saying that the company had removed every fox from Wandsworth whether or not they were pests. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had no intention of misleading the Committee but these are facts: first, Wandsworth borough council has confirmed in writing that it has no contract with Wildlife Management Ltd. The firm is one of a number operating in London to whom the council refers inquiries about pest control work. 
 Secondly, DEFRA has given no approval to Wildlife Management Ltd. Thirdly, we cannot confirm the information that the hon. Gentleman gave about the number of foxes killed by Wildlife Management Ltd. The company's figures appear to be considerably higher than those that it gave to Wandsworth last year. Certainly, there are still foxes in Wandsworth; indeed, an organisation called Humane Urban Wildlife Deterrence also works in that area. I have a letter from that organisation stating the figures given by Wildlife Management Ltd. are total nonsense and that there are no more than 200 adult foxes in the entire Wandsworth borough. It would appear that the hon. Gentleman made his point on a somewhat shallow basis and I shall give him the opportunity to respond.

James Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am glad to hear that the London borough of Wandsworth did not appoint the company. I was quoting from a fax that the company sent to the headmaster of a primary school in Wandsworth saying that it had been appointed by the London borough of Wandsworth and stating that it had killed 2,717 foxes in the last six months. I hope that I made it clear at the time that I was quoting the company rather than the London borough of Wandsworth, to whom I had not spoken.
 The Evening Standard yesterday reported that 9,000 foxes had been killed in London in the past six months. What does the Minister say to that?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman left members of the Committee with the impression that, at the very least, he was quoting from a fax from the London borough of Wandsworth. I am happy that he has made it clear that the fax was from a third party. I suggest that he does not try to present to the Committee as information something that he has not been able to verify. There is much more to be said about the control of foxes in London, but as it is not
 relevant to hunting with dogs, I shall leave the issue, having set the record straight.
 There is no evidence that fox hunting promotes or protects the health of the fox population, which several Opposition Members have claimed rhetorically. There are no documented differences in the health of foxes in areas where there is hunting. Mange occurs and has spread in hunted and unhunted areas. 
 Consideration of the Bill has been an evidence-based process, although some Opposition Members seem to have suggested that the exercise has not been genuine, or that I have not listened. One has come to expect such comments from them. Those who have engaged in the process know how genuinely I listen to everyone on both sides and how I try to balance all the evidence and points of view. It is also important that amendments tabled by Opposition Members, or Members from any other party, are also scrutinised on the basis of principle and evidence. Some hon. Members have sought to adduce evidence; others have not. Conservative Members have made many assertions, but few of their challenges have a clear basis in evidence.

Hugo Swire: Does the Minister agree that we may be confused and misguided because we cannot understand why he has changed his position so much on what he allowed us to believe he thought utility meant in the now famous letter of 10 April 2001, in which he talks about the need for activities such as working the land, wildlife management and so on, and why he has tightened his interpretation? Is it surprising that we are in a dark night as to where his thinking is going?

Alun Michael: It is extremely surprising, because I made what happened clear at least twice in Committee. I said that I sought to make the questions as wide and as open as possible in the initial search for evidence so that no one would feel excluded from making their point or providing their evidence. I said that, as time went on, I narrowed down the definition of utility to those points on which I believed that the principle was borne out and supported by evidence, so I am indeed surprised. I suggest to the hon. Member for East Devon that he has not been listening.
 I made a factual point on the health of the fox population, and I want to make a similar point about deer. The two areas in which red deer are hunted with dogs do not contain healthier animals than other areas where they are managed by other means. Red deer populations thrive in many other regions where there is no hunting with dogs. There is a different culture on Exmoor—the hon. Member for East Devon called it tribal, and referred to totems. As I highlighted the fact that there is a different culture there, I spent a lot of time examining the arguments, listening to the views and trying to tease out in discussion the reason for that different approach. 
 I also spent a lot of time talking and listening to people, and I drew the conclusion that the opinions are genuine. However, it was much more difficult to find any factual basis for those opinions. It is possible that 
 deer numbers in hunted areas would fall if hunting with dogs ceased and if farmers became less tolerant and introduced other methods of control, but the red deer in those areas are only a small part of the national population of the species that is not threatened or endangered. Farmers and landowners in unhunted areas have not eradicated their total stocks. 
 I suggested in an intervention to Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is not present but who intervened in what I am afraid was a typically ungenerous manner, that they should exercise greater care and restraint as to the red deer population. If they genuinely want the deer population to thrive at acceptable levels at which they are not a pest, but are seen as an attractive part of the countryside that helps the rural economy by encouraging visitors, it does not make sense to encourage an almost self-fulfilling prophesy by suggesting that it would be legitimate for people to blast off at the old deer simply because Parliament took a decision on hunting.

Hugo Swire: The Minister must stop trying to plant a seed in people's minds that that is what Conservative Members have been saying. We have not. We have simply reviewed the evidence, with particular reference to Exmoor and the deer herd, for what happened historically when there was no hunting. Let us deal with facts.

Alun Michael: I have examined the evidence and I found that it is not conclusive, nor is that the only road we can go down. The good will of the people living in Exmoor is important. I have demonstrated my good will by listening to and discussing with them, as I shall continue to do, the potential impact of the Bill on the area. I am also in continuing dialogue with local constituency Members. I understand the concerns and the dangers, but I see no justification for an approach that would threaten the deer population. Only a few are killed as a result of hunting, so it is time to lower the rhetoric and to stop building up the impression that such approaches are justifiable.

James Gray: The Minister says that he spent time listening to people in Exmoor, so will he tell us how many days he spent there? He also spoke of a large red deer population elsewhere in England, so will he tell us what percentage of England's red deer population can be found in Exmoor?

Alun Michael: I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with detailed figures in due course, but the comparisons provide no justification for the belief in Exmoor that hunting contributes to a healthier population.

Ian Cawsey: People are likely to speculate about what may happen in the event of a ban, so has my right hon. Friend reflected on the Scottish scenario? Scotland has a substantial deer population and hunting with dogs for deer has not taken place historically.

Alun Michael: Different circumstances apply in Scotland: the terrain is different and the deer
 population is concentrated in large single estates. Comparisons can be made in respect of health, but differences also have to be taken into account. My hon. Friend makes a useful point, which should be played into the argument, but it is not the only one that can be brought to bear on the problem.
 I shall not follow the hon. Member for East Devon and others by reopening debates that have been fully explored in previous sittings, save to put on record the fact that the fishing and shooting communities are rightly ignoring the Conservatives' cynical attempts to frighten them on the basis of a totally misplaced extrapolation that the Bill would threaten those sports. I hesitate to spend more time on an issue that we have already debated on several occasions, but it has been raised yet again by Conservative Members, so it is as well to nail their false arguments.

Peter Luff: I do not fish, because I believe that it is cruel, but I recently started shooting. All the friends that I go shooting with make exactly the extrapolation that the Minister seeks to deny—he is simply wrong.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman was wise when he said that he would not pursue the matter. There is no read-across from the Hunting Bill to the sports of shooting and fishing. We do not need to go over it all again. I have listened to all who expressed opinions and I have shown that the Bill, unlike some amendments, is based on clear principles and evidence.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) was right about the importance of the definition of utility.

James Gray: Is the Minister aware of a recent interview on ''Today'' in which James Naughtie asked the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) why all shooting should not be banned? His answer was, ''We take one at a time.'' Does that not suggest that the Labour party is ready to move on to other things, once this ban is out of the way?

Alun Michael: It indicates no such thing. My party has clear manifesto commitments, one of which is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on hunting with dogs. We also have an equally clear manifesto commitment not to interfere with the sports of shooting and fishing. I do not know how many times one has to state that before it is understood by Opposition Members, but our position is clear.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire rightly said that the definition of utility is important. He was also right to say that hunting defined itself as pest control, although he suggested that that might have been a mistake on its part. It is hardly fair for people who hunt to complain, because I have taken them at face value and treated their case fairly in the terms that they put it. That is why the Bill allows them to prove their case and why deer hunting and hare coursing, which clearly cannot satisfy those tests, are not allowed under part 2. 
 I understand the approach that the hon. Gentleman is adopting—he seeks to slacken the definition of utility in a way that would undermine the Bill. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire, however, seeks to drive a coach and horses through the test. He 
 suggested during this morning's debate that he wants the registrar to satisfy himself on the utility of tests through a pick-and-mix approach. I allowed for everyone who believed that the test of utility could be met in particular circumstances, or in respect of particular criteria, to provide evidence to deal with particular problems. 
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire and Opposition Members in general have not understood the importance of the sequential test. Before asking whether a particular activity passes the least suffering test—the cruelty test, as it has been described—we must ask whether that suffering is necessary, because unnecessary suffering is cruel. It is important that that test is applied at the beginning to the question of necessity. If an activity is cruel, it should not be allowed, even if it has, as the hon. Gentleman said, an economic value. I do not see how one could fail to apply the same criteria to personal enjoyment, although having fun is not the issue. If causing unnecessary suffering amounts to cruelty, any hunting just for the 
''enjoyment of sport and recreation'' 
would inevitably, and by definition, be cruel. That is why the sequential application of the tests is so important. 
 The hon. Gentleman's argument on the introduction of capital punishment was also telling. He said, quite rightly, that that could be justified on the ground that it would create employment. If that were enjoyed, however, it would say something particularly unpleasant about some human beings in relation to particular spectacles, regardless of any economic value. Far more telling and important is the fact that capital punishment could not be reintroduced, because it is cruel and unacceptable. My argument is that causing unnecessary suffering to wild animals is unacceptable. It should not be justified simply because it gives pleasure. If a pest control utility were used, whereby the least suffering would be caused, there would be a case to answer. In that event, it would be fine to enjoy the activity, although that is not the point, nor is it the point that there might be an economic benefit in relation to any activity that survives the test of utility.

Gregory Barker: The record will show that the Minister said that causing unnecessary suffering to wild animals is unacceptable. That brings us back to shooting and the intellectual inconsistency that he applies to the Bill. How can he stand there and say that it is cruel to inflict unnecessary suffering on wild animals, but somehow imagine that that excludes every species except the fox?

Alun Michael: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. We are dealing not just with foxes and deer, but with mammals generally. Given Parliament's intention to legislate on the matter, my challenge was to produce proposed legislation that would provide the correct tests to decide what hunting activity with dogs should be allowed. That line is difficult to draw. Previous legislation, which has been described as banning legislation, drew the line and agreed exceptions, but care is needed to design legislation
 that draws the line in the right place and does not have unintended results.
 It is also important to design legislation that is properly enforceable and does not create confusion about what activities are allowed. If it is difficult to enforce, much time will be spent in the courts rather than in enforcement of the law. I have explained that several times—it is very clear. I invite Opposition Members, especially as they made a point about listening a short time ago, to listen to an explanation that I have clearly given to the Committee on several occasions.

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman may be about to show that he has not been listening again, but I shall give way one more time before I turn to the amendments.

Gregory Barker: Did the Minister say that, in his view, causing unnecessary suffering to wild animals is unacceptable?

Alun Michael: I said that causing unnecessary suffering to wild mammals is unacceptable. That is the test that has to be satisfied in the Bill. I also said that the principles set out in the Bill cannot be extrapolated to the activities of shooting and fishing. I have made that clear time after time, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to listen to what I have said.
 I spoke to amendment No. 185 when I introduced the debate, and I think that all hon. Members have accepted my explanation that, in effect, it corrects an oversight. I believe that I have satisfied the Committee on that, and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire might acknowledge that that makes amendment No. 18 unnecessary. 
 Amendment No. 19 would add a reference to pets and domestic animals to the utility test. I can see no need to cater specifically for those. It is hard to envisage circumstances in which a hunt would make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage caused by wild mammals to a pet or domestic animal.

James Gray: I sought to explain that very plainly to the Minister on Thursday, but he obviously was not listening. There are two circumstances in which that might happen. One is where a rogue fox threatens a pet such as a rabbit, hare, cat or dog. The second is where there is a risk of mange spreading from the local fox population to pet dogs.

Alun Michael: I shall return to mange in a moment, as I can deal with that under separate provisions. In the other circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, which seem unlikely, if evidence could be provided, an application could be made under clause 8(1)(g), which refers to the prevention of serious damage to ''other property''. He would open up a massive loophole were that amendment accepted, although I suspect that he wants a wider definition.

Peter Luff: I apologise to the Minister for asking this question, as it probably shows my ignorance, but does ''livestock'' in subsection 1(a) include poultry?

Alun Michael: Yes. I mentioned that in response to an earlier intervention, and I am happy to confirm it.
 Amendments Nos. 20 and 113 would add a long list of new specified purposes to the utility test. They are by and large the same, except for the point on the rural economy, so I shall deal with them heading by heading, rattling through the list of suggestions, rather than considering the two amendments separately. 
 The first purpose on the list is 
''the sustainable management of the quarry species''.
 As drafted, the utility test in clause 8(1) provides that the prevention of serious damage to the biological diversity of an area may justify hunting taking place, if it also satisfies the cruelty test. Beyond that, however, there must be serious doubt about the concept of hunting to death or otherwise killing healthy animals of a particular species for the benefit of the species as a whole. I am not aware of any scientific justification for human intervention where wild mammals are not a pest. 
 I discussed 
''the enjoyment of sport and recreation''
 when I first responded. Seeking to include that shows a fundamental lack of grasp of the Bill's purpose. We must outlaw the activities that cause unnecessary suffering. Who can argue that it is necessary to hunt just for fun? As I said to the House when I introduced the Bill on 3 December, the key point is that no one has, or should have, the right to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals.

Gregory Barker: Once again, the Minister has used the words, ''No one has the right to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals.'' He said ''animals'', not ''mammals''. Does he stand by that statement and what effect does it have on shooting?

Alun Michael: I am applying that definition to a group of animals or other mammals. That is what the Bill is about. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped that the Committee is dealing with hunting, although that is in the Bill's title.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mrs. Rowe. The Minister definitely said ''animals''. I hope that Hansard will not be corrected by his civil servants to show ''mammals''.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman yet again makes an unnecessary and unpleasant comment about civil servants. I do not ask my civil servants to change the record, nor would they do so. I suggest that he withdraws his slur against civil servants, whom he knows work with integrity in this place.

Peter Luff: It is well known that Ministers' civil servants—I refer not to this particular Minister, but to Ministers in general—regularly correct Hansard to give a true sense of what a Minister meant. They may judge that he meant ''mammals'' and seek to correct it. On this side, we believe that he meant ''animals''. It is a matter of dispute between us. It is fair and proper for
 civil servants to seek to correct the record to convey a true sense of what they think their Minister meant, but we believe that he meant ''animals''.

Alun Michael: Not only did I mean animals, I said ''animals''. The hon. Gentleman creates a problem where there is none. I shall interpret his remarks as an apology, and I hope that the civil servants are also willing to do so.
 The next heading is the preservation of the landscape. Lord Burns acknowledged the historical role played by hunts in conserving and promoting habitats, but he concluded that, overall, hunting does not play a major role in conservation. I make that point because the Burns report was quoted several times by Opposition Members. Paragraph 7.42 states: 
''Nowadays, however, hunting with dogs is likely to form only a relatively minor factor in determining farmers' and landowners' land management practices''.
 The point has been made strongly in a variety of places that Government activities such as the agri-environmental schemes and the promotion of biodiversity have a much greater impact. 
 I turn to the rural economy. I have always said that, because hunting is by definition a rural activity, it may have some impact on the local economy, but that is not a justification for allowing it to continue where it results in unnecessary suffering for wild mammals. Paragraph 3.8 of the report states: 
''Hunting, as an economic activity, is so small as to be almost invisible in terms of national aggregates''.
 From a macro-economic perspective, the number of jobs that depend on hunting is small, particularly compared with the number in agriculture, for instance.

Gregory Barker: It took me a while to refer to paragraph 7.42. The Minister read correctly:
''Nowadays, however, hunting with dogs is likely to form only a relatively minor factor'',
 but he cut short the final sentence, which states: 
''It still plays a role, though, in certain localities in respect of woodland planting and management'',
 which represents an important habitat for biodiversity.

Alun Michael: Indeed, that is the point I was making. The impact is minimal compared with that of agri-environmental schemes and the woodland schemes encouraged by the Government. That has been acknowledged by many people from whom I have taken evidence. Since the hon. Gentleman wishes to hear the report in extenso, it states at paragraph 7.43:
''Hunting exerts much less influence than agricultural market and policy trends, the management of game for shooting or incentives under agri-environment schemes''.

James Gray: That is obvious.

Alun Michael: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is obvious. I thought it obvious too.
Gregory Barker rose—

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is playing games; he is not serious.

Gregory Barker: I am not playing games. I am trying to get around the issue of selected quotations from Burns. I thought we had agreed last week that we
 were not going to play that game, but the Minister has decided to revert to it. If he had continued reading paragraph 7.43, he would have read the final sentence:
''The loss of habitat suitable for hares could have serious consequences for a number of birds and other animals.''
 For some reason, he chose not to read that out.

Alun Michael: That is quite right, because the first sentence responds to that point:
''Hunting exerts much less influence than agricultural market and policy trends, the management of game for shooting or incentives under agri-environmental schemes.''
 The massive increases in incentives under agri-environmental schemes during the past couple of years, and in future years, will have a considerable impact on the environments we are discussing. 
 The next suggested heading is vermin control, which concerns a situation in which a wild mammal is regarded as a pest. If a wild mammal is a pest, it is already catered for in the utility test in clause 8(1). The next heading is habitat protection. References have also been made to the sustainable development of the area under the remit of the 1992 Rio declaration on environment and development. Those are aspects in which hunts play a role, but not to a significant degree. In any case, hunting with dogs hardly constitutes environmental management and development, matches the term ''for the purposes of the Rio declaration'' or contributes to sustainable development. Certainly, hunters in England and Wales are not the indigenous people referred to in the terms of the Rio declaration.

Peter Luff: This is intended to be a helpful intervention—[Hon. Members: ''I'm sure!''] This is intended to be genuine. The Minister implies that line 13—
''serious damage which the wild mammals to be hunted''—
 refers not just to the species of wild animals, but to individual animals, or, in other words, nuisance animals.

Alun Michael: Yes, indeed. That evidence would be brought forward in such circumstances to satisfy that requirement. The hon. Gentleman is right. I am glad that I thought the intervention would be helpful, because it was.
 The next addition would be the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease. Adequate powers already exist for the Secretary of State to take necessary steps for the purposes of disease control, so there is no need to make further provision for that in the utility test. In any event, it is hard to envisage circumstances in which chasing wild mammals around the countryside with dogs would contribute to preventing the spread of disease. 
 During the course of foot and mouth disease, it is fair to say that the majority of hunters suspended their activities immediately as the problem developed and co-operated with controls. A small number of shrill voices, however, demanded that foxhunting be resumed long before it was safe to do so.

James Gray: The Minister makes a rather obscure point. Of course hunting was stopped to prevent the spread of foot and mouth, but we are talking about the
 prevention of the spread of diseases such as mange. A fox that has mange, for example, is more likely to be caught by the hunt than young healthy fox. That is how it prevents the spread of disease.

Alun Michael: In that case, evidence could be brought forward to satisfy existing requirements. However, it is far more likely that the disease control requirements available to the Secretary of State would be the appropriate ones to use. I gave the foot and mouth example. There was considerable co-operation in making sure that activities to control the spread of disease were undertaken by limiting activities of all sorts, even when the risk was very small, as with walkers. I am sure that such control could be achieved under existing legislation.
 The last point on the list is the purpose of obtaining food for animal or human consumption. Amendment No. 115 in the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives also covered that point, and he asked some specific questions on it. The utility test concerns what is necessary. It is not necessary to hunt with dogs to obtain food for human consumption. There is a side benefit of food for human consumption when activities are undertaken for pest control, which is neutral. It is not a matter that needs to be dealt with or listed in the test for utility. Including hunting 
''for the purposes of obtaining food for human or animal consumption''
 in the utility test in clause 8(1) would allow all hare hunting, whether or not its primary purpose was to obtain food. Obtaining food is included in the exemption in schedule 1 on stalking and flushing out, to which the hon. Member for St. Ives referred. The exemption in the schedule is intended to allow necessary activities, such as stalking deer, but not the traditional hunting of deer, and flushing out hares, but not the hunting of hares. The exemption is subject to five strict controls, including a prohibition on the use of more than two dogs or using dogs underground, and the requirement that the quarry animal is shot as soon as it is found and flushed out. 
 Schedule 1 is species specific and deals with the recapture of wild animals and falconry because we want to make clear which activities are not intended to be caught. I remember that we had similar discussions on the previous Bill about the issues around the edges. If those issues are not dealt with carefully and methodically, we may unintentionally prevent people from doing certain things. Therefore, my answer to the hon. Gentleman, who said that his amendment was exploratory, is that it is appropriate to include such a provision in schedule 1 but would be inappropriate to make it part of the utility test.

James Gray: Will the Minister cast his mind back to the debate that we had the week before last when he said that rabbiting was exempt from the Bill because it would pass the utility tests? When we pressed him on why it would pass the utility tests, he said it was because rabbiting is for the purpose of obtaining food for human consumption. In that case, why is that not one of the utility tests?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, but if he casts his mind back, he will recall that I referred to two other points in relation to rabbiting. It satisfies the utility test in the case of pest control. The concomitant benefit—

James Gray: No, that is not what the Minister said.

Alun Michael: I corrected myself at the time. I pride myself that I must have been making a good case for the hon. Gentleman to quibble over such minor points.
 Amendment No. 110 would add controlling nuisance animals to the utility test in clause 8(1). That is unnecessary because if a wild mammal is being a nuisance, damaging livestock or crops, the situation is covered by the pest control provision in the utility test in clause 8(1). 
 There should be real justification for pursuing pests with dogs. The utility test makes that clear. The activity must be necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock or crops. In contrast, the amendments would be too vague and general to be workable and would open up all sorts of loopholes. 
 Several Conservative Members have said that there is utility in the use of dogs for the dispersal of foxes. That is a novel argument that was not raised during the Portcullis house debates, but it has little practical application. Foxes are territorial and their family groups inhabit largely exclusive ranges, while juvenile animals undertake a roving phase while they seek an area in which to settle. The scientific advice available to me suggests that using dogs to disperse a local concentration of foxes has little utility. Most foxes are territorial and will quickly return to their previous haunts. Similarly, any cleared area will rapidly be refilled unless co-ordinated control is undertaken over a large area. It will be for applicants for registration to make the case for the utility of the proposed hunting and it will be up to them to argue the merits of the dispersal policy. I simply make the point that the scientific advice that I quoted suggests that the case will be difficult to sustain. 
 Amendment No. 111 would add the maintenance of social and cultural cohesion of an area as a utility for hunting. I recognise that hunting may play some part in binding people in an area, but a whole variety of activities can bind groups of individuals together. Some of those activities may be pleasant and positive, but not all are. [Interruption.] I will not follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham in suggesting activities that might create coherent groups. 
 In the context of hunting, the issue was raised in paragraphs 4.54 and 4.55 of the Burns report and in evidence that I was given during the consultation process. Surveys show, however, that substantial numbers of people in rural areas oppose hunting. Any social benefit is likely to be marginal and cannot of itself justify chasing wild mammals with dogs. The building of cohesion may be a side effect and a benefit of an activity that a group of people do together, but the activity should not be allowed if it does not satisfy the test. There are large areas of land where no hunting takes place, and there is no reason why alternative methods of maintaining social cohesion cannot succeed; indeed, they frequently do. 
 Amendment No. 112 would expand the utility test by adding to the list of criteria for assessing utility 
''the provision of a service for the collection of dead, injured, ill and surplus livestock from farms in the area''.
 Several hon. Members made good points about the importance of dealing with fallen stock. Again, however, the fact that the service is a by-product of the hunt's main activity and is useful to farmers and others cannot justify the continued hunting of wild mammals with dogs. The service is a side effect, as the hon. Member for St. Ives said. It may incidentally be a benefit, but it cannot sensibly be seen as part of the key test. 
 Although I acknowledge the benefit that farmers derive from the service, things are changing as regards the collection of dead animals. The European Union's animal by-products regulation will ban the routine on-farm burial and burning of animal carcasses from 30 April 2003. That means that the fallen stock service provided by several hunts could continue only with considerable investment in new equipment. The future of the hunt service is therefore in doubt, irrespective of the Bill. 
 My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is working with the farming and disposal industries to ensure that there is a practical and effective way to assist farmers with the problem. Indeed, he has responded to questions on the Floor of the House to clarify the position, so I am saying nothing new.

Peter Luff: I just do not understand, although I am sure that the Minister will be able to explain it, how the new regulation on on-farm burial will make the fallen stock service provided by hunts more problematic. I do not understand the causal link.

Alun Michael: If it were possible to continue collecting animals in the current way, the fact that they could not be buried on the farm would make the service more valuable. However, it will not be possible for hunts to continue with their current means of disposal, such as incineration, without considerable investment in additional or new equipment. There is therefore an issue as regards the disposal of fallen stock, irrespective of the continuation of hunting. Hunts are well aware of that because there has been considerable discussion with the disposal industry, which, in this context, includes many of those involved in hunting.

Adrian Flook: As a DEFRA Minister, the right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell me what percentage of the carcasses collected by hunts is incinerated and what percentage fed to the hounds.

Alun Michael: No, I cannot. The topic is dealt with in detail by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and there is considerable discussion on the issue. Significant proportions of carcasses are incinerated by hunts; that is part of their method of dealing with the fallen stock that they collect. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire a few moments ago, the ending of on-farm burial will add to the serious problem of disposing of stock, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is dealing specifically with that. Discussions are ongoing, so I am not sure whether my position is up to date, but if it helps I
 shall ask the Under-Secretary to send a note to inform members of the Committee about the current situation. He last answered a question shortly before Christmas, and things may have moved on since then.

Rob Marris: We were told earlier that 400,000 carcasses were removed saving farmers £3.7 million. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the Under-Secretary is considering whether finance might be made available?

Alun Michael: It would not be wise to answer that question, but I shall ask the Under-Secretary to include that information in a note to the Committee.
 Simply to say that hunts continuing to collect fallen stock should be seen as an example of utility would not deal with the problem, which is not for the Bill and is being dealt with outside of the Bill. As far as the Committee is concerned, it would not make sense for the collection of fallen stock to be added to the utility criteria in the same way as economic benefit or enjoyment. An activity may have side benefits or consequential benefits, but they should not be part of the utility test. 
Gregory Barker rose—

Alun Michael: Given that the hon. Gentleman will do himself serious damage if I do not give way, I shall.

Gregory Barker: This is an issue for the Minister's Department. He will find from the Burns report that 50 per cent. of hunts had incinerators in 2000. Since then, a number of other hunts have made a significant investment by obtaining an incinerator. The majority of them have incinerators up and running, and his point does not therefore stand.

Alun Michael: No, the hon. Gentleman has made my point. A number of hunts have incinerators, many of which would not meet modern requirements. The hunts would not therefore be able to continue with their activities. I am going outside the scope of the Bill, Mrs. Roe, although I am perfectly happy, and the Under-Secretary will be delighted, to find that Opposition Members are interested in a matter to which he has applied a great deal of time and effort with the farming and disposal industries in order to find a satisfactory outcome. As I have indicated, I will ask him to enlighten members of the Committee on that issue, which is not a matter for the Bill.
 I have dealt with amendments Nos. 113 and 115 in parallel with other amendments because they cover similar territory on the rural economy and obtaining food. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have spoken to the amendments—in some cases, at great length—because the debate has helped to clarify the test set out in clause 8. Members of the Committee probably understand the tests more clearly, and some of them will understand that the alternatives are not appropriate because they would undermine the integrity of the test. 
 The test has stood up well to scrutiny, and I urge the Committee to accept amendment No. 185 and not the variety of amendments that would undermine or over-expand the sensible and well-designed test of utility on which the test of least suffering, which is so important to the Bill's integrity, depends.

James Gray: As the Minister correctly said in his final sentence, the definition of utility is central to his Bill. The debate over the past three or four sittings has been useful in highlighting the most fundamental difference between Labour and Conservative Members. We have sought to demonstrate the variety of different ways in which there is utility to hunting. We have heard thoughtful speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for East Devon and for Bexhill and Battle and, on behalf of the Middle Way Group, from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire.
 We have expanded on subjects such as species management, which we believe to be central. Indeed, the Minister's letter of 10 April seemed to accept the utility of species management. We have talked about landscape and habitat protection and biodiversity. We know about the contribution to social and cultural life, and to the local economy. We believe that all those elements, and others, including sport and recreation, should be fundamentally part of the utility test. Labour Members do not think so, and that is a central difference between us. 
 I was slightly puzzled by a point that the Minister raised. He said that he was not aware during the Portcullis house discussions of anyone dealing with the utility of dispersal of fox populations by foxhunting. Perhaps he would consider publishing the transcript or report of the Portcullis house hearing, as he has not yet done so. He is of course about to tell us that the film is available.

Alun Michael: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The proceedings can be studied on video, as a transcript and on a website. I do not think that there has ever been a set of hearings so widely available to anyone who wants to read them. I suggest that he should refer to them. If he has difficulty in obtaining them, although the videos are in the Library, I shall bring a spare copy.

James Gray: I correctly anticipated and suggested to the Minister that he would say that videos were available.

Alun Michael: Transcripts are available, too.

James Gray: If the Minister will sit quiet for a second, I shall continue. He has said that he is not aware of scientific evidence for the dispersal function of foxhunting. We should like to see a copy of the scientific evidence. We are not aware of any such scientific evidence. [Interruption.] The Minister seems to be saying from a sedentary position that it happened at Portcullis House and is available to be studied.

Alun Michael: I am surprised at what the hon. Gentleman says, because he made the effort to attend the Portcullis House discussions, although many hon. Members did not. I wrote to every Member of the House pointing out that transcripts and videos were available if they wanted them, and that the record could be viewed on the internet if desired. I also invited any hon. Members who wanted to do so to come and listen. All the evidence is available to them.

James Gray: That was a most interesting intervention. A moment ago, in his speech, the Minister gave a two-part answer to our point that foxhunting has utility in dispersal of foxes. First, he asked why dispersal was in that case not mentioned at all in Portcullis House, and secondly, he said that he had since then received scientific evidence that dispersal is not a utilitarian function of foxhunting. However, he now says in an intervention that we should examine the transcript from Portcullis House, because it deals with dispersal.

Alun Michael: No.

James Gray: Just a minute.

Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I said that the Portcullis House transcript deals with the question of dispersal. I said the reverse.

James Gray: I was putting a question to the Minister, in response to which he jumped up to make an untimely intervention, and I shall put it quietly, slowly and carefully. He claims that he has scientific evidence that dispersal is not a useful function of foxhunting. I said that all we want is that he should give us the evidence, and he leapt to his feet and went on about videos and the Portcullis House hearing. I say again, the Portcullis House hearings quite clearly did not say that dispersal is not a utility of foxhunting. He says that he has had subsequent scientific evidence on the point. We request that he should let us have it. It is a very simple matter.

Alun Michael: I am happy to respond now that the hon. Gentleman has explained what he wants. My memory is that the issue of fox dispersal was not raised at all, the argument was not made, and evidence was not provided by anyone. No one at Portcullis House suggested that it was a serious issue. He raised the issue this morning for the first time, so of course I asked for scientific advice, as I mentioned in my response. The scientific advice was that no one has any evidence that the dispersal of foxes is a matter of any utility.
 I also asked for advice from our scientists about the way in which foxes behave, and that suggested that there was no question of utility. If the hon. Gentleman makes an assertion during the morning sitting, it is for him to provide evidence that it has utility.

James Gray: The Minister cannot have read Burns. The argument about the dispersal of foxes goes back as far as the argument over foxhunting. We have always argued that that is the case. It is amazing that he did not hear about it until this morning. None the less, he says that he has received scientific advice. He said that he has evidence that the dispersal function of foxhounds is not useful. We ask him to publish that evidence. We need to know what evidence he has that it is not useful. We have plenty of evidence; I could talk about it at length. I mentioned it this morning, and I have tons more—[Interruption.]

Marion Roe: Order. I am unable to hear the hon. Gentleman clearly—neither can anyone else—because of the persistent murmuring of sub-committees going on at the same time. If hon. Members wish to hold conversations, I ask them to do so outside the Room.

James Gray: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. It is a small point, and we should not get bogged down.
Alun Michael rose—

James Gray: If the Minister would not mind sitting down and listening carefully, he might learn a thing or two. I am making a small point about the utility definition. It is not a matter of huge importance. None the less, we believe that there is utility in the dispersal of foxes. The Minister claims that he has scientific evidence that that is not the case. I have asked him to produce it. The main thrust of my argument—
Alun Michael rose—

James Gray: If the Minister will forgive me; he has been on his feet three or four times, and he has not yet convinced anyone.

Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Is the hon. Gentleman allowed to twist words, to misquote and misrepresent—and then not to give way in order that he can be corrected? It shows his weakness. Under Committee procedures, is it not also improper?

Marion Roe: That is not a matter for me.

James Gray: It sounds as if we have hit a bit of a raw nerve; perhaps we should move swiftly on. The Minister has a short fuse, and we must not tempt him too much. He has already lost his temper once or twice and we must not allow it to happen again in this sensible discussion.
 I was saying that we believe that there is a variety of utilities in foxhunting, mink and stag hunting and hare coursing. The other side believe that the definition of utility should not be drawn that widely. Leaving that difference to one side, I want to examine a piece of logic that seems to be missing from the Bill. 
 The Minister, against our better judgment, consistently says that the tests should be sequential. We argued on earlier amendments that they should be linked. We believe that there should be the least amount of suffering, that utility and cruelty should be linked, and that there should be one test—I used the word ''intermingled''—but the Minister said no, the tests must be sequential and different, and not linked. If that is so, surely it would be logical to examine the utility of hunting of all kinds on its own, irrespective of the cruelty or suffering that might be associated with it. 
 What we have been discussing in these amendments is whether hunting of all kinds has utility, and if so, what sort of utility it is. In other words, it would be at least theoretically possible to say that some practices might be demonstrably cruel—that they were the cruellest things imaginable to humankind—but that they none the less had utility; they would pass the utility test but fail on the cruelty test, as they should. However, the Minister seems to be saying—this is the fundamental illogicality of this part of the Bill—that he does not believe in utilities such as sport and recreation or habitat management, because cruelty is associated with them and that we therefore cannot allow those definitions of utility. 
 That seems to be a fundamental illogicality. Surely the Bill should define the utility of the different forms 
 of hunting and then—subsequently, as the Minister would have it—the registrar would consider whether those activities involve any kind of cruelty. That is what the Minister seems to want to happen. I would like the two to be linked, but he seems to be arguing that the two should be sequential and entirely separate. If that is the case, surely it is only reasonable that he should consider things such as habitat management, species management and the other aspects that we have mentioned over the past two days, even if the consequence is allowing the practice to go through the first test. 
 That is the nature of our amendments to the first part of clause 8. We are arguing that a variety of utilities can be argued for in the context of the various types of hunting, irrespective of whether cruelty or suffering would be involved. That is not the point; we are discussing utility. That seems to me to be almost a scientific study. The question seems to be: is there utility in doing this? It seems almost to be for scientists to decide whether there is inherent cruelty . The Minister sought to belittle some of the points that we raised. For example, fox dispersal is an interesting scientific and zoological point: do hunts disperse foxes or do they not? Are foxes territorial or can they be moved on? Scientists could study that and come to an interesting conclusion on it. The utility involved is irrespective of whether there is cruelty associated with it. 
 The Minister attempts to dismiss our concerns about habitat management, species management, sport and recreation and the contribution to the economy as irrelevant because he believes that hunting with dogs is cruel. He answers his own question and is blowing a hole in the logic of the Bill. We believe that by narrowing the definition of utility, he has undermined the entire concept of utility and least cruelty—a concept that he has often outlined ad nauseam. 
 That is why we think it important, and we recognise that the other side will not agree, that we define ''utility'' on the face of the Bill to reflect reality in the countryside, not to reflect some idea of imagined cruelty. We ought to define utility in the Bill as it is in the countryside, and the Minister will fail to do that if he rejects amendments Nos. 20 and 19. We concede amendment No. 18. Of course, we are glad that he listened to sense on ground-nesting birds, so we will not be pressing amendment No. 18 to a vote. 
 Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would define on the face of the Bill the purpose of hunting with dogs. The Minister wants the definition of utility clarified in the Bill so that the registrar will know what he is talking about. The registrar will talk about whether such practices may or may not be cruel. The Minister cannot have it both ways. If the two tests are intertwined, he should have accepted the amendments that were proposed last week. However, he constantly says that the two tests must be sequential rather than linked. The first test must be purely to test utility; then there is a test for cruelty. If the two tests are sequential, he must accept our definition of utility, because it is correct; it is the true definition; it is what is happening in the countryside. He may not like it, 
 and his prejudices may prevent him from listening to it, but it is the reality in the countryside.

Peter Luff: I will be brief, as this has been a long debate. I am sorry that the Minister felt that I was unduly robust this morning, but the Middle Way Group genuinely believes that the definition of utility has been too narrowly drawn, and the debate today has done nothing to diminish that belief. It poses additional questions about the effect that the test will have on gun packs, as they hunt with both dogs and guns.
 The Minister said some helpful things about the disposal of fallen stock, but in Carmarthenshire, for example, farmers have no choice for fallen stock but the hunt service. The costs without the hunt service would be £30 for a sheep and £80 for every head of cattle. Those are considerable costs for farmers. What he said about the intentions of the Under-Secretary on the matter is very important. 
 I listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). The utility test needs widening, and if my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire presses amendment No. 20 to a vote, I will support it. However, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and I will not be pressing our amendments to a vote. We should reconsider them to see how they can meet the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and bring them back on Report framed in such a way that they meet those concerns. We genuinely believe—

Edward Garnier: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Report and Third Reading stage of the Bill will be hugely truncated. We will be lucky to get three straight hours of debate, especially if there are a couple of Government statements on that day, so will he undertake not only to bring the amendments back on Report but to do his best to ensure that they are properly discussed in another place?

Peter Luff: The political reality is that nothing that would, in the Minister's perception, dilute the utility test will be passed by the Committee today, so I have little to lose from my gesture. However, I shall seek to persuade the noble Lords in another place that the amendments have merit, perhaps if framed differently. I shall not press them, and I look forward to the clause stand part debate, when we shall debate important material.

Alun Michael: I want to deal briefly with one issue, but first I say to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that he should not take it that he hits a raw nerve if people get excited when he misrepresents them. Misrepresentation is irritating. I promise that I shall do my best not to misrepresent him and ask for the same courtesy in return.
 It was suggested this morning that the dispersal of foxes has some value. I made the point that that was not something that was argued for, or for which evidence was produced, during the Portcullis House hearings. I said also that the scientific advice to me was that there is no evidence of value from dispersal. The 
 hon. Gentleman made something of a diversion by asking for evidence. The point is that there is a lack of evidence. 
 I referred to the natural behaviour of foxes, which would make it surprising to discover utility resulting from dispersal. That is the scientific advice on which I based my comments. I will happily go a little further and say that I think that I now know why that was not raised in Portcullis House. It was raised in the Burns inquiry. I had overlooked the fact that Lord Burns referred to dispersal, saying that 
''there is little evidence that . . . this activity is particularly effective in reducing fox populations or that dispersal has the benefits which the MFHA claim.''
 I suspect that those at Portcullis House resiled from discussing it on the quite genuine request not to reopen issues with which Burns had dealt.

Nicholas Soames: The Minister has been very courteous, but I could produce for him impeccable evidence on the dispersal of foxes from the National Gamekeepers Organisation. If I did, would he consider the matter further?

Alun Michael: I am eternally patient when looking at any evidence. My point was simply that everyone had an opportunity to provide evidence, for several months. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman sent me anything, I would look at it. However, it would seem rather surprising if some blinding bolt of evidence emerged from the blue at this stage that had not appeared earlier.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 19, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert— 
 '( ) pets and domestic animals'.—[Mr. Gray.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 20.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 20, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'or 
 ( ) will contribute towards— 
 ( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species; 
 ( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation; 
 ( ) the preservation of the landscape; 
 ( ) the rural economy; 
 ( ) vermin control; 
 ( ) habitat protection; 
 ( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992); 
 ( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or 
 ( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.—[Mr. Gray.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 21.

Question accordingly negatived.

Rob Marris: I beg to move amendment No. 184, in
clause 8, page 3, line 27, leave out from first 'that' to end of line 30 and insert 
 'it is likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals to be hunted than would be likely to be caused by any other reasonably available method of achieving the contribution mentioned in subsection (1).'
 I might be accused of being pedantic in tabling this amendment. We had a long debate on amendment No. 24, which I will in due course seek leave to withdraw in favour of amendment No. 184. 
 The Committee will be aware of my approach to the wording of the Bill, given my legal background. In discussion of amendment No. 14, I asked Opposition Members whether the wording implemented that which they sought to achieve, and raised similar points on amendments Nos. 20 and 113. 
 For similar reasons, my hon. Friends and I fastened on the word ''significantly'' in amendment No. 24. We had a long debate on that amendment. It struck me, having reflected on that debate, that the wording of the Bill would be more elegant in clause 8(2) if it were not as in the Bill, but as in amendment No. 184, so I will speak briefly about that. 
 What I have termed the inelegant wording of clause 8(2) is: 
''The second test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that a contribution equivalent to that mentioned in subsection (1) could not reasonably be expected to be made (whether by the person proposing to hunt or by another person) in a manner likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals to be hunted.''
 That is a bit of a mouthful. Paragraph 18 on page 3 of the explanatory notes to the Bill explains the meaning of the subsection that I have just read. It states: 
''To satisfy the least suffering test under subsection (2), the applicant for registration must show that a contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage equivalent to that mentioned for the utility test in subsection (1) could not reasonably be expected to be made (whether by the applicant or by another person) in a manner likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammal being hunted.''
 That is almost word for word the same as the text in the Bill of clause 8(2). I thought that the wording was not sufficiently elegant so, together with my hon. Friends, some of whom were rather sick of the long debate on ''significantly'' in relation to amendment No. 24, I took it on myself to devise a better wording for subsection (2). That better wording is contained in amendment No. 184. 
 My hon. Friends, many of whom are mentioned on the amendment paper, heaved a sigh of relief when they discovered that we were not going to get bogged down in a vote over amendment No. 24 and meanings and dictionary definitions of the word ''significantly.'' Instead, we have the clearer and more elegant wording in amendment No. 184. I ask the Committee to support the amendment.

Lembit Öpik: It is my intention to make a short speech, so that the hon. Gentleman can get up again. How will the clause operate differently as a result of the amendment?

Peter Luff: Equally briefly, I hope that when the hon. Gentleman responds, he will specify the other people with whom he developed the wording of the amendment. For the life of me, I cannot see what difference it makes. When he speaks of other people, outside the Committee, my suspicions are raised. Who were the other people?

Alun Michael: I was one of the people with whom my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) discussed the wording. I shared his concern that some of the discussions seemed to be going round in circles. Perceptions of the impact of the wording were different. One of the reasons for that is that sometimes there is a difference in law and the legal interpretation of a word is not the same as its everyday interpretation. It is pleasant to find a lawyer who seeks to open up, into everyday language, clarity of meaning, rather than to provide a professional gloss. My hon. Friend's endeavours and his keenness to talk things through and help us to get it right are very welcome.
 I do not think that I need to go on at great length. Frankly, the new wording expresses the test of less suffering more elegantly than the original. It makes the intention absolutely clear. The signatures of a number of my hon. Friends indicate that they too think that if the amendment were agreed, it would be clear what was meant in the Bill. I would be happy for the amendment to be agreed.

Rob Marris: To reply to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), the new wording would simply make things clearer. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has just said, it would open things up. To reply to the hon. Member for Mid-
 Worcestershire, I discussed the wording with my right hon. Friend the Minister and with some of my hon. Friends who appended their signatures to the amendment. It is nothing more sinister, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, than that.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Codes of practice—
'The test for registration is the observance of a code of practice.'.
 New clause 6—Publication of codes of practice— 
'(1) The registrar shall prepare and publish codes of practice, each dealing with a particular kind of registered hunting. 
 (2) The registrar shall prepare and publish one or more codes of practice dealing with hare coursing. 
 (3) The registrar shall— 
 (a) review and revise each code from time to time, and 
 (b) publish each revised code.'.
 New clause 7—Content of codes of practice— 
'(1) Each code of practice must in the registrar's opinion be designed to— 
 (a) improve or protect animal welfare, 
 (b) protect the safety of members of the public, and 
 (c) discourage trespass. 
 (2) Each code of practice must, in particular— 
 (a) specify things which registered hunts should or should not do, permit or cause to be done, 
 (b) include provision about obtaining permission for hunting or coursing from landowners, and 
 (c) include provision about the manner in which hunted animals are killed. 
 (3) The registrar shall ensure that provision is made in each relevant code of practice about each of the practices mentioned in subsection (4), either— 
 (a) declaring that the practice should not be engaged in, or 
 (b) providing that the practice should be engaged in only subject to specified conditions or in specified circumstances. 
 (4) The practices are— 
 (a) autumn or cub hunting, 
 (b) digging out or bolting wild mammals which have gone to ground, 
 (c) stopping up earths and refuges, 
 (d) providing artificial earths and refuges, 
 (e) interfering with the flight of a wild mammal during a hunt, and 
 (f) hunting a hind which is with its calf. 
 (5) Provision under subsection (3)(b) about digging out must include provision about obtaining permission from landowners. 
 (6) Provision under subsection (3)(b) about digging out or bolting must be designed to minimise the time during which dogs are used below ground.'.
 New clause 8—Effect of codes of practice— 
'(1) Failure by a person to comply with a code of practice shall not of itself make him liable to criminal or civil proceedings. 
 (2) In exercising a function under this Part the registrar or the Tribunal may take into account— 
 (a) a code of practice; 
 (b) a failure to comply with a code of practice. 
 (3) A code of practice— 
 (a) shall be admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings, and 
 (b) shall be taken into account by a court or tribunal in any case in which it appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant.'.

James Gray: We have now had seven sittings of the Committee, which have lasted for a total of 20 hours or so, on clause 8. That is quite right, because it is the central and most important part of the Bill, although there are some other very important sections, especially in part 1. None the less, to try to get the principles of cruelty and utility right is a sensible action to have taken. We readily acceded to the Minister's request that he should re-order a discussion of the Bill so that we could do precisely that.
 We have made it plain from the beginning that we have no difficulty in principle with the notion of the cruelty and utility tests. It seems sensible to apply such tests to almost any human activity. If it could be demonstrated that the cruelty were vastly greater than the utility being achieved, the activity would not be allowed. The principle is not difficult to accept, and we have always taken it to be self-evident. However, as we have argued consistently in all seven sittings—all 20 hours—that only works, and we only accept the principle behind the tests, if they are defined correctly. 
 It has been demonstrated to us over the seven sittings that, in five separate regards, the definitions are seriously flawed and make a nonsense of the Bill. As far as I can recall, the only amendment that the Minister has accepted is the addition of the words ''ground-nesting birds''. That is a useful addition but hardly of great significance. He has now accepted the rewording of subsection (2) proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. That rewording appears to make little difference in reality, although it may be more elegant for all I know, not being a lawyer. 
 The Minister has accepted no other substantive amendments to the clause, so it remains largely as introduced. It is fundamentally flawed in five principal ways. First, it seems absolutely absurd and intellectually unsustainable that the Minister has decided in his wisdom alone that stag hunting and hare coursing should not be subject to the same tests as foxhunting, mink hunting and hare hunting. As a parenthesis, it is equally illogical to exempt rabbits and rats. Almost the only matter on which all the scientists and all the commentators at Portcullis house agreed was that every mammal should be treated exactly the same. The tests of cruelty and utility should be applied to stag hunting and hare coursing just as much as they should be to foxhunting and mink hunting. 
 The Minister says that he has ''incontrovertible evidence'' that deer hunting and hare coursing are so wicked and appalling that he will choose unilaterally to ban them, leaving the registrar the opportunity to make up his mind on the hunting of foxes, mink and hares only. That is extraordinary. 
 At the least, if the Minister has ''incontrovertible 
 evidence'', he must let us know what that is. I have gone to the trouble of looking at the 187 submissions that he received from organisations in the consultation period. They are now in the House of Commons Library, although the letters are not. They remain private to the Minister. Some 174 of the 187 submissions argue passionately and convincingly for the continuation of hunting with dogs, and 10 argue, rather unconvincingly, against it. If somewhere in those 187 submissions, there is incontrovertible evidence that stag hunting and deer hunting should be banned outright, I challenge the Minister to point it out. If it is not contained in those submissions, he must show the Committee where it is to be found. If he fails he do so, he will have blown a hole in the Bill's central logic. Everyone in Portcullis house told him to treat all mammals similarly. He says that he has incontrovertible evidence that does not allow him to take that unanimous advice. He must tell us what that incontrovertible evidence is. 
 I hope that he will make it clear in his reply why he has exempted rats and rabbits, and banned stag and deer coursing . He must not simply revert to his old form of words and say, ''Because we know they are wicked, and we have incontrovertible evidence to say that they are wicked.'' We want to know what that evidence is and why, in his arrogance, he decided to ban those two sports and not to allow them to be considered by the registrar. 
 In taking that decision, the Minister has also exposed an interesting sidelight into his thinking. He says that he has incontrovertible evidence that stag hunting and hare coursing are wicked and scandalous, and that he will nonetheless allow foxhunting and mink hunting with dogs to be considered by the registrar under the cruelty and utility tests. By that action, he is tacitly admitting that he knows that deer hunting is wicked but that there may be utility in the use of dogs for hunting foxes. We welcome that change in his position. Only six months ago, in this Room, he argued with passion that all hunting with dogs should be banned—it was wicked, scandalous, disgraceful, cruel and awful. He sat on those very Benches and said ''Ban it''. Now we have the conversion on the road to Emmaus; now stag hunting is wicked and should be banned, but foxhunting and mink hunting are possibly all right. They must be considered by the registrar, who must apply the tests of cruelty and utility. He has admitted that there might well be some utility in the use of dogs for hunting foxes and mink. We very much welcome that. 
 Secondly, the Minister's muddle becomes plain when we consider his approach to hare coursing. The debate that we had on that matter was particularly interesting. He has specified the banning of organised, competitive hare coursing, but has chosen to say that private coursing—in which an individual takes two dogs on to his own land—might be allowed. He has also said that two categories of hare coursing might be allowed without going to the registrar, the flushing of hares to a gun for food and the setting of dogs on a hare if there is reasonable cause to believe that the hare has been wounded by a gun. In exempting them, he 
 has come to the most perverse conclusion imaginable. He has banned the very thing that aims not to kill hares, has possibly made allowable—or has admitted the utility of—using dogs for coursing hares, and has perversely, apparently, given permission for the use of dogs to chase hares, both to flush them from cover to a waiting gun and to chase them if they have inadvertently been wounded. He seems to have got the whole thing back to front. There is no logic in his position on hare coursing. 
 He is in such a muddle both because he does not know much about hare coursing so he has got it all wrong and because he seems to have thought, ''Everybody knows that stag hunting and hare coursing are bad. I will get the Labour party and the public with me if I ban those things, because they sound nasty.'' In his anthropomorphic way, he decided to ban them and to get some public support. As for rats, we know that they are nasty; everybody hates rats, and rabbits. So he exempted them, and the tests of cruelty and utility will be applied to whatever is left. He has got himself into a terrible muddle and he should tell us why he has done that. 
 The second reason why we dislike clause 8—we have discussed this at some length—is because he has made the tests sequential. English law has always used the words ''unnecessary suffering''; the two are inextricably linked. By taking the tests sequentially, he is undermining the basis of most animal welfare legislation of the past 100 years. In addition, he sets the registrar and the courts an impossible task. 
 Thirdly, the Minister cannot escape the reality, which some of his colleagues are coming to recognise—I mention particularly the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter)—that if he accepts the principles of cruelty and utility as drafted in the Bill, it is only a matter of time before they are applied to other sports and other activities. He tells us not to worry about it—the Bill is only about setting mammals on mammals and the Labour party manifesto makes it plain that nothing will be done with regard to shooting and fishing. We welcome that and we are glad that the Minister is here to make it absolutely clear with regard to this Parliament. However, that is not the view of most of the organisations that are advising him, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, headed by the excellent Jackie Ballard. She has made it plain that she intends to apply those very principles of cruelty and utility to shooting and fishing. She dislikes them too and she wants to ban them. So does the League Against Cruel Sports. It has done precisely the same thing. Most people are now saying, ''Fine. If we get these principles accepted here, it will matter of time before we apply them to all sorts of other things.'' 
 I do not want to get back into that debate, as we are, after all, summing up our discussions. We have been round that track several times—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham is a vice-chairman of the LACS. If, through his intervention, he wants to assure the Committee that the LACS will not campaign against fishing and shooting, or any other 
 sport, and that it will be satisfied with banning hunting only, I shall happily take his intervention.

Tony Banks: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is not only reluctant to take interventions, but wants to predetermine those that he gets. He cannot have it that way. I shall make my own intervention, not the one that he wants me to make.
 Organisations and individuals are fully entitled to campaign against any activity, whether it be fishing or shooting. The important question is whether the House will go along with such a proposal, for which individuals in a democracy are entitled to press. My point to the hon. Gentleman, then as now, is that there is no clear majority of support in the House for banning either fishing or shooting. He is wrong to keep raising the issue, as though that will scare people.

James Gray: I not only take interventions, but I took a rather long and ranting one. I was not making the point that the House will ban shooting and fishing—that is obvious. The Labour party manifesto is a pretty worthless piece of paper, but it none the less says in black and white that the Government will not ban shooting and fishing. I am happy to accept that. I do not for one second suggest that this Parliament will ban shooting and fishing. I make the good point that if a piece of legislation concedes a principle, it is only a matter of time before those who feel passionately on such matters come back and say, ''You've conceded that principle with regard to that legislation there. I now call on you to concede it with regard to this activity here.'' The hon. Member for West Ham would not deny that.
 The LACS and the RSCPA have already indicated that they intend to do precisely what I described. They intend to use the principles of cruelty and utility, as laid out in the Bill, to achieve a ban of other perfectly legitimate sports. Intensive farming and various other matters are related. That is a fundamental flaw in the test that the Minister has come up with.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter goes back to the point about universality. People should recognise that by regarding utilities such as recreation as zero we run the risk of creating a contradiction that will inevitably come back at some point in the future. There are many precedents for that in the House.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me and makes it very well indeed. The precedent will have been set, and we shall, at some stage in my parliamentary career, be in Committee, discussing the application of the tests to other sports. Mark my words. Putting the test in the Bill creates a significant risk that it will subsequently be applied to other sports.
 Our fourth criticism of the principle of cruelty and utility is that the definition of least suffering is subjective and impossible for the registrar to apply objectively. For the registrar to be objective in the consideration of least suffering, he needs some guidance about what I described as the hierarchy of suffering. Is hunting with dogs more or less cruel than shooting with a shotgun? Is it more or less cruel than snaring? The Committee could not agree which of those practices were more or less cruel. We had a great 
 debate about the matter and came to no conclusion as to whether snaring was a good or bad thing, or whether shooting with a shotgun in the day or at night was a good or bad thing. We came to no conclusions about which of those activities was more or less cruel than the others. 
 However, neither we nor the scientists—the scientific evidence does not exist—are giving the registrar any guidance. Instead, we are saying to the registrar, ''We want you to decide about snaring, use of shotgun by night, the use of a rifle by day, and the use of an airgun by a 12-year-old boy, because we can't decide.'' That seems to be a fundamental flaw in the Bill. 
 We are asking the registrar to make a subjective judgment but we have not been able to make the judgment ourselves. It would be intellectually coherent for Labour Members to say, ''We hate hunting with dogs. It is wicked, so we are going to ban it.'' I disagree with them, but that would be intellectually coherent. To argue that they have no view on the matter, but there might be some utility in hunting and hardly any cruelty involved, so they will appoint a civil servant and tell him that he must decide seems to be intellectually incoherent. That will land the Bill, as well as the cases that will be brought under it, in court for many years to come. Like all badly drafted and badly considered legislation, clause 8 is truly a lawyers' charter. 
 The Minister never tires of saying that he wants the legislation to stand the test of time. He wants to settle the matter, which is what the Labour party manifesto also said. I can give him one absolute guarantee; this Bill will not settle the matter. It will result in years and years of costly court cases on both sides of the argument. If the Minister's aim was to produce legislation that will stand the test of time, he has demonstrably failed. 
 The most fundamental flaw in clause 8 is that the definition of utility is wildly at odds with the realities in the countryside, which we discussed a moment ago. The Government have acknowledged that species management and habitat improvement are legitimate activities in the context of shooting and fishing. The Minister's letter of 10 April acknowledged that, but those activities have been dropped from the Bill. The Government have sought to define utility so narrowly that few hunts and few individuals seeking to use dogs would qualify. That is completely intellectually incoherent. It would be reasonable to assess the utility of the activity and then, as the Minister would have it, consider whether it involved cruelty and ban it if it did, even if it had utility. However, not even to acknowledge the utility of certain activities because some people believe that they involve cruelty seems to me to be wrong. 
 The Middle Way Group has proposed some new clauses, which it regards as an alternative to clause 8. My approach would be different. I hope that clause 8 does not form part of the Bill. Incidentally, I have been 
 told that other Labour Members intend to suggest, on Report, that it should not form part of the Bill, and we shall support them in their ambition. We have proposed a licensing regime under new schedule 1, which sets out a sensible alternative to the tests of cruelty and utility. 
 We very much support the principles annunciated in the new clauses proposed by the Middle Way Group. It suggests codes of practice for each type of hunting, which would be applied by the registrar to ensure that no unacceptable practices were carried out. However, we are unable to accept subsections (3) and (4) of new clause 7 because they are unnecessary. The new clause refers to several practices, including ''autumn or cub hunting'', ''digging out or bolting'' terrier work, stopping up, the use of artificial earths, deliberately interfering with a quarry's flight and hunting hinds with calves. 
 It lists practices to which the registrar would have to have due regard. Our argument is that the codes of practice laid down by the various organisations already cover those points and are either demonstrably reasonable and worth having, as is the case regarding autumn hunting, or, if they are not and need reconsidering—some aspects of terrier work or digging may fall into that category—the individual organisations are already doing that. Subsections (3) and (4) are otiose and unnecessary, and seem to indicate that there is something wrong with several of the practices that they mention. We therefore resist new clause 7. The other new clauses need further discussion in the event that clause 8 does not stand part of the Bill. 
 We accept the principle of cruelty and utility. We also accept the principle of examining all forms of hunting using the tests of cruelty and utility, which it is perfectly sensible to want to do. However, we believe that the definition of cruelty should be comparative and contain a hierarchy of cruelty, and that the definition of utility is much too narrowly drawn. The fact that we can compare the two definitions only sequentially, as the Minister described it, rather than together, is also a problem. Those three fundamental, intellectual flaws, and the fact that the Minister has unilaterally and arrogantly decided to ban deer hunting and hare coursing, strike at the heart of what would otherwise be a perfectly sensible principle of cruelty and utility. 
 The Opposition were bitterly disappointed by the Minister's initial statement on the Floor of the House, and we hoped in hearings at Portcullis house that the Government and the Labour party might be ready to listen to reason and to consider how to regulate hunting in a way that would buy off the criticism of the worst antis. We hoped that they might regulate bits here and tighten bits there, and that the Minister's approach would be constructive and sensible. However, we believe that he has drafted the clause to make it extremely unlikely that any form of hunting will continue. That is an extraordinarily disappointing pre-judging of what the registrar should be judging. It seems to be an attempt at a covert ban. It is a thoroughly bad clause, a thoroughly bad Bill, and we will vote against the clause on stand part.

Peter Luff: It is fair to say that those who follow the middle way are in a dilemma about clause 8 stand part. The hon. Member for The Wrekin laughs, but our approach is characterised by the attempt to be rational and objective about the matters under discussion. We did not think of the cruelty and utility test that the Minister proposed, but proposed an alternative mechanism in our new clauses. We accept that the methods proposed by the Minister could, if properly framed, perform a similar function. We contend that they are not properly framed. The clause would have the effect of banning most forms of hunting, which is not in the best interests of animal welfare or human freedom.
 We have a dilemma about how we vote on the clause. I understand that the Committee can vote on our new clauses only if the clause does not stand part of the Bill. The wording of our new clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 is taken almost exactly from the options Bill from the previous Session and was drafted by a parliamentary draftsman at the time. Small changes have been made to reflect the insertion of ''registrar'' and ''tribunal'' to replace the terms of art used in that Bill. 
 A weakness in the Government's approach is that the definitions of utility and cruelty under the clause, and indeed the Bill, take no account of trespass, disruption and disturbance—a major concern of the Burns report. There is also no account taken of openness. Our new clauses address the principal matters of concern that Burns identified in paragraph 89.2. Their approach to the issues under discussion are more comprehensive than that taken by the clause. I agree with my hon. Friend about the codes of conduct that now exist in hunting. The clause, and indeed the Bill, would not be necessary if those codes of conduct had been refined and put into practice earlier under the auspices of the independent supervisory authority for hunting. Sadly, that was not done. 
 I am struck by ISAH's protocol on hunting, which is based on three tests, not two: humanity, which it defines as the avoidance of unnecessary suffering; utility, which it defines as the effective management of the quarry species; and stewardship—the sensitive management of the living environment—which is missing from the clause. Our new clauses address those issues implicitly and explicitly. I believe that they address the principal concerns expressed by the public about hunting and are therefore a more appropriate way of tackling the problem that the Minister has set himself in trying to bring to resolution. 
 I am in a dilemma about how to cast my vote on clause 8, because it is bad as drafted, but it could be good. The principle was not ours, but I understand and respect its intellectual context. I will be interested to hear the Minister's closing remarks. 
 I could make a lengthy speech on the proposal from the Middle Way Group, but I shall make only one point by way of conclusion. I understand why the Minister said in an earlier debate that the Middle Way Group had ''sold out to the hunting lobby'' or some such phrase—I cannot remember his exact words. The truth is different. The concerns that we have expressed as a group for five or six years are precisely those identified in the Burns report as trespass, openness, 
 autumn and cub hunting, digging out, stopping up, use of artificial earths, deliberately interfering with the quarry's flight, a closed season for hares, hunting hinds with calves and so on. 
 The hunting lobby has moved towards our position, and if there is less space between our position and theirs, it is not because we moved, but because they did. In that process, we have seen a significant shift of public opinion behind the continuation of hunting under the regime that we propose. That is why the Minister, for reasons of intellectual consistency and political common sense, should embrace our alternative proposals. The British people want them, and the Minister is in danger of enshrining on the statute book legislation that is based on views held by the public many years ago. I urge him to consider seriously whether our new clauses do not offer a better way forward. 
 I will listen to the Minister's comments about clause 8. I accept that it could be a useful contribution towards resolving the issue, but as drafted and after inadequate amendments have been passed, it does not do that.

Tony Banks: I am uneasy about clause 8, and I may come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, although for completely different reasons. I like to think that I have been as consistent as possible. It is not always possible in politics to have an absolute case, as there are inconsistencies even in the most consistent position that one adopts, because life is like that, as we often find out. However, I hope that I have been consistent in wanting a total ban.
 I have concerns about clause 8. I commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for his efforts to produce legislation that stands the test of practice, which I fully understand. We have debated the points time after time, including on the last Hunting Bill, which had serious loopholes that would have caused it to be a mess had it ever reached the statute book. I am someone who thinks that if a piece of legislation does not work in practice as ideally as one would have wished, one should revisit it. We have to do that on a regular basis, as what would life be without at least two Criminal Justice Bills per Session? I understand that it is necessary to close loopholes, but even if we do not get it right this time, there is no need for us to reproach ourselves unless we have missed something obvious. We might have to revisit the legislation in the light of practice. I would like it to be different, but that is not the way that the world works.

Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Banks: Let me make a few points first.
 I have made these points in private to my right hon. Friend, so he knows about them. I do not like the registration system because the clause involves subjectivity, even though we tried to take away as much uncertainty as possible. Some of the words will bring a gleam to the eyes of lawyers, when they realise that they will be able to keep a court or tribunal going for hours and hours. As we know, lawyers tend to think that they get paid by the word. I can see such a problem down the line if we adopt a registration system. 
 If we end up with a registration system, a future Government will be able to tweak it. It will be possible to alter it in a way that we would not find acceptable today. Things change; we must accept that. In a way, a registration system is a hostage to fortune. Because of the subjectivity involved, and because of the possibility of future alteration, I am extremely uneasy about the whole system. 
 The interpretation of the words ''utility'' and ''cruelty'' is open to debate and discussion, as we have heard, ad nauseam. I can envisage the same debate being transferred into the outside world, if a registration system with a registrar is ever set up. Almost the same arguments with which we have been engaged will be repeated. That is a matter of concern.

Lembit Öpik: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help my understanding of what he said. He said he wanted a total ban. I presume that he does not mean a total ban on hunting of any species with dogs. Could he clarify what he means?

Tony Banks: I intend, in my remarks, to stick to clause 8 and the question of registration. I should be happy to enter into a discussion with the hon. Gentleman, because I am an absolutist on this question. I would, indeed, stop all hunting with dogs. I have said it enough times in the Chamber and in Committee. However, that is an issue that will side-track us. It is hardly a revelation to the hon. Gentleman or anyone else.
 What we are talking about now is a registration system under clause 8 and the matter of utility and cruelty. I do not think, even with some of the helpful amendments tabled by my hon. Friends, that we have arrived at definitions with which I can feel happy. An unsettling element of subjectivity remains. 
 On a matter that is, I suppose, almost a corollary of my first point, and that relates to what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire was saying earlier, it is true that once a registration existed, some people might ask why, if registration and the two tests of utility and cruelty were to be applied to mammals, they should not also be applied to fish or birds. I do not like the registration system. However, one cannot prevent others from wanting to broaden the scope of a measure. 
 The hon. Gentleman said that he would be happy with a registration system and the tests, but that he was not satisfied that they were broad enough. I think that they are too broad. I should like to restrict them to the point where they ceased to exist. My point, however, is that it is not possible to prevent anyone from making a case for extending the registration system with its two tests of utility and cruelty to cover other species. 
 Time and again, I have pointed out that in the end the decision will not be taken by the people who exert pressure and engage in lobbying—whether they are good organisations like the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA, or others such as the 
 Countryside Alliance. We cannot stop anyone wanting to exert pressure to extend or restrict arrangements that have been made. Nevertheless, in the end we decide. That is our function. I am not worried about how many people want to put pressure on us. 
 It is wrong for those who support the views of the Countryside Alliance to pray in aid a threat to fishing and shooting as a way of resisting a ban on foxhunting, hare coursing, deer hunting and, indeed, in the present instance, the registration system. 
 For all those reasons, I am minded to vote against the clause, and I want a wider debate on this issue on the Floor of the House. There is a majority feeling—which should be tested there—for a total ban rather than a ban or restriction that might come about through a registration system.

Andrew George: The hon. Member for West Ham made a number of compelling and, as usual, passionate arguments for the deletion of clause 8. The debate on clause 8 does not only concern why we should introduce registration.
 A number of hon. Members who contributed to the debate have not dealt with my earlier question: given that the House is clearly minded to ban hunting, why should it be retained? We have gone through the liberty arguments and can debate who won them. The most charitable argument that we can put forward is that it is at least unclear whose freedoms we are defending. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire put it, the irrefutable logic of applying utility and cruelty in the way in which the Bill proposes is that people will argue, as the hon. Member for West Ham explained, that the House will ultimately come to a similar decision for shooting, fishing and other activities that affect the welfare of animals. 
 If that is so, those who are particularly concerned and are following the liberty argument should use the antithesis of that logic to argue in favour of revisiting and repealing 19th century legislation. We were told in a response to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal that the original legislation was brought in for public order reasons and not for animal welfare. My checking of the record—I recommend ''Animal Welfare Law in Britain'' by Mike Radford as a good source—confirms that the legislation was actually the result of concern about animal welfare, not public order, although public order was an issue that clearly concerned people at the time. 
 At the end of the day, whether or not we go down the route of applying clause 8, we have to ask whether other forms of pest control are more humane or crueller than hunting with dogs. The one thing missing from the debate on clause 8 was an attempt to pinpoint scenarios in which other forms of pest control would inevitably be less humane, more cruel or would result in greater suffering for the animal concerned. 
 Those in the pro-hunting lobby argue that the alternatives simply would not work and would result in the indiscriminate slaughter of animals in the countryside. They argue that foxes would inevitably be maimed, which would result in more cruelty, and 
 therefore the alternatives would be no more humane. We have heard those arguments being trotted out before, but I have not heard evidence to sustain them beyond the point at which the competency of professional marksmen is questioned but the competency of the hunt is not. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire is once again surprised by my raising that matter. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire seems to want to intervene, and when he does so he might be able to help me because I seek more information. In an earlier contribution, he told the Committee that one of his colleagues, who has a 2,000 acre-estate, was able to shoot and kill—not shoot and maim—126 foxes in two nights. Presumably, he is arguing that he knows that his friend shot and killed those 126 foxes.

James Gray: I shall ignore the hon. Gentleman's rather silly point. Does he accept that we have not reached a conclusion on whether shooting with rifles, shooting with shotguns or snaring is more or less cruel than hunting with dogs? The clause does not provide clear guidance, so we ask the registrar to judge on that matter, which cannot be decided here.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman says that, but some people have suggested that hunting is more humane than other methods. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, for example, tried to argue that foxes are anaesthetised by the chase, almost as if they were gagging for it. It is an extraordinary argument, but the question of which methods are more or less humane is central to the clause.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman is reopening a wide debate that we have already had, whereas I wanted a short stand part debate. I remind him that the Middle Way Group is putting its policies where its mouth is and testing the most humane method of killing foxes. We are doing the research and are prepared to be judged by the results. It is a shame to see the hon. Gentleman pre-judging the issue. I wish that he would listen to us and realise that our research is based on objective reality rather than prejudice.

Andrew George: Many of the assessments have been delayed. Whatever method is viewed as more humane or less cruel, the fact remains that the pro-hunting lobby have raised other concerns, such as the impact on the wider countryside and the inevitable result of indiscriminate and wholesale slaughter.

Lembit Öpik: I do not want to labour the point, but if the hon. Member can point us towards an objective comparison of the suffering caused by hunting with dogs and by shooting, the Middle Way Group would welcome it. It is not that we are afraid of the information, but that we do not believe that the information exists. The challenge for those critical of the Middle Way Group is to provide evidence strong enough to make us change it. Being data-based is not possible if the data does not exist.

Andrew George: I am grateful for that intervention. A mass of data and evidence has already been presented on what constitutes more or less cruelty. Let us be honest and admit that people come to this debate with preconceived ideas and are unprepared, whatever the evidence, to change their views.
 Unfortunately, I have to include my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire in that group. I do not know what additional data will come to light that would induce him to revise his views—

Peter Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew George: No, I will not. The fact remains that a wealth of data, information, research and argument has been produced on this issue.

Lembit Öpik: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew George: No. I am not even convinced that the additional information that my hon. Friend seeks would necessarily address his key concerns.

Lembit Öpik: To put it on the record, the Middle Way Group can easily state what we are looking for—the wounding rates associated with shooting, which could then be compared with the suffering caused by hunting with dogs. There is no mystery about what we want to find out, but the requisite objective research has not been conducted.

Andrew George: In that case, my hon. Friend should examine some of the work undertaken by Dr. Piran White on fox predation as a cause of lamb mortality or other studies on the shooting of foxes. One study researched by Professor Harris—[Interruption.]—and this is true whether or not the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire accepts it—demonstrated that out of 824 carcases from throughout the country examined, only five showed signs of old shot wounds.

Gregory Barker: Old shot wounds?

Andrew George: There were old shot wounds in the carcases of those foxes. That was only five out of 824. The question has to be asked, who was doing the shooting on those occasions?

Tony Banks: I do not know if it might help the hon. Gentleman, but the British Pest Control Association has given me a series of alternative fox control methods other than hunting and it cites the number of its members who are fully equipped to deal with fox control. [Interruption.] Yes, shooting is one of them. There is a whole series of small firms in the rural community that are able to deal with foxes other than through hunting.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have described those methods that are known to me and used by members of my family. I also described this morning the method that is used in London. I should have thought that trapping and the use of the bolt to the head would be a very humane method of pest control.
 I am not convinced about the issue. We can research until the cows come home, but the fact is that the cows are coming home and we need to come to a decision now. We can always conduct further research, but I do not think that the kind of research that some hon. Members suggest will result in our getting closer to the truth. On both sides of the debate, people approach this issue with a pile of prejudices—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire agrees with that. We have reached the point where a decision must be made, and quickly. 
 On clause 8, given the arguments that have been put forward, how does the Minister justify the need for regulation and what scenarios could he envisage in which there would be a need for hunting because—as he must believe, having thought it through—other forms of pest control are less humane than registered hunting? If he is unable to suggest any such scenarios, that would call into question the need for clause 8. The hon. Member for West Ham is right. My view is that 
 we should give the issue some further debating time. I am prepared to let the clause through, but I reserve my right at a later stage to support those who wish to delete the proposals on registration and therefore clause 8. 
 Sitting suspended. 
 [Continued in column 395]